Capítulo VI. Cierre del negocio
Anexo 4. Etapas del restaurante El Bulli
Empathic capacity measured using both the empathy quotient (Baron-Cohen and Wheelwright, 2004) and the interpersonal reactivity index (Davis, 1983) is significantly associated with positional concerns identified using survey experiments and the subjective well-being (SWB) approach. The experiments were conducted for an alternative set of goods associated with individual pleasure and suffering to investigate how people’s levels of empathy relate their positional concerns with regard to a number of consumption “goods” and “bads”. The SWB approach investigates how the utility impact of others’ consumption is heterogenous with respect to the level of empathic capacity. Our main conclusion is that positional concerns substantially vary with the levels of empathic capacity. The degree of
heterogeneity in positional concerns differ across types of goods in a predictable pattern. The results are very robust and suggest that people with a higher level of empathic capacity are more concerned about their relative consumption position (or their utility is affected more) when the object of their comparisons is a consumption item associated with pleasure and utility while they are less positional (or their utility is affected less) when it is a consumption item associated with pain and disutility. Extensive robustness analysis suggests that the results are insensitive with respect to functional forms, estimators, empathy measure used, and potential omitted variables (e.g., prosocial behavior) that may bias the results.
Our results are highly intuitive and suggest that positional concerns vary with empathic capacity. One obvious implication of this finding is that the economic models aiming to relate optimal taxation, labor supply, and consumption decisions with positional concerns should also consider the heterogeneity in positional concerns due to dispositional empathy differences across individuals. However, caution should be taken. In conceptual terms, we rely on the definition of a trait-like empathy, i.e., dispositional empathic capacity. Thus, the results in this paper can be interpreted as part of a recently developing literature aiming to investigate how non-cognitive skills relate to economic outcomes of individuals (e.g., Borghans et al., 2010). However, empathy can also change temporally depending on contextual factors, and the utility implications of these temporal changes might depend on another set of factors, e.g., the speed of adaptation to temporal shocks. Our first suggestion for future research is to extend the research presented here to experiments where temporal empathy is measured (see, e.g., Klimecki et al., 2016). Another important issue that is not investigated in our study is the composition of individuals in the reference groups. As the psychology literature suggests, people’s empathic reflection process may differ depending on the socio-cultural or genetic proximity to the people
in their reference groups (Brandstätter, 2000). In our paper, we assumed that individuals’ reference groups are exogenously given and formed by “strangers.” Thus, our second suggestion for future research is to investigate how the characteristics of people in the reference group interfere with the relationship between empathy and positional concerns.
References
Akay, A., and Martinsson, P. (2019). Positional Concerns through the Life Cycle,
Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 78: 98–103.
Akay, A., and Martinsson, P. (2011). Does Relative Income Matter for the Very Poor? Evidence from Rural Ethiopia. Economic Letters, 110: 213–215.
Akay, A., Bargain, O., and Zimmermann, K.F. (2017). Home Sweet Home: Macroeconomic Conditions in Home Countries and the Well-Being of Migrants, Journal of Human Resources, 53: 351–373.
Akay, A., Karabulut, G., and Martinsson, P. (2013). The Effect of Religiosity and Religious Festivals on Positional Concerns: An Experimental Investigation of Ramadan, Applied Economics, 45: 3914–3921.
Aronsson, T., and Johansson-Stenmann, O. (2014), Positional Preferences in Time and Space: Optimal Income Taxation with Dynamic Social Comparisons,
Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 101: 1–23.
Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S. (2004). The Empathy Quotient: An investigation of adults with Asperger syndrome or high functioning autism and normal sex differences, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34: 164–175. Batson, C. D., Batson, J. G., Slingsby, J. K., Harrell, K. L., Peekna, H. M. and
Todd, R. M. (1991). Empathic joy and empathy-altruism hypothesis, Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 61: 413–26.
Batson, C.D. (1987). Distress and empathy: Two qualitatively distinct, vicarious emotions with different motivational consequences, Journal of Personality, 55: 19–39.
Batson, C.D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social psychological answer. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Batson, C. D. (2009). These things called empathy: Eight related but distinct phenomena. In J. Decety, & W. Ickes (Eds.), The social neuroscience of empathy (pp. 3–15). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Batson, C.D., and Oleson, K. (1991). Current status of the empathy–altruism
hypothesis. In M. S. Clark (Ed.), Prosocial Behavior (pp. 62–86). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Batson, C.D., and Shaw, L.L. (1991). Evidence for altruism: Toward a pluralism of prosocial motives. Psychological Inquiry, 2: 107–122.
Batson, C.D., Chang, J., Orr, R., and Rowland, J. (2002). Empathy, attitudes and action: Can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group motivate one to help the group, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28: 1656–1666.
Batson, C.D., Dyck, J.L., Brandt, J.R., Batson, J.G., Powell, A.L., and McMaster, M.R., (1988). Five studies testing two new egoistic alternatives to the empathy–altruism hypothesis, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55:, 52–77.
Bernhardt, B.C., and Singer, T. (2012). The neural basis of empathy, Annual Review
of Neuroscience, 35: 1–23.
Borghans, L., A. Duckworth, J. Heckman, and ter Weel, B., (2008). The Economics and Psychology of Personality Traits, Journal of Human Resources, 43: 972– 1059.
Brandstätter, E. (2000). Comparison based satisfaction: contrast and empathy,
European Journal of Social Psychology, 30: 673–703.
Buunk, B.P., Collins, R.L., Taylor, S.E., VanYperen, N.W., Dakof, G.A. (1990). The affective consequences of social comparisons. Either direction has its ups and downs, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59: 1238–1249.
Carlsson, F., Johansson-Stenman, O., and Martinsson, P. (2007). Do you enjoy having more than others? Survey evidence of positional goods, Economica, 74: 586–598.
Clark, A.E., and Senik, C. (2010). Who Compares to Whom? The Anatomy of Income Comparisons in Europe, Economic Journal, 120: 573–594.
Clark, A.E., Frijters, P., and. Shields, M.A. (2008). Relative Income, Happiness, and Utility: An Explanation for the Easterlin Paradox and Other Puzzles, Journal
Cobb-Clark, D.A., and Schurer, S. (2013). Two Economists’ Musings on the Stability of Locus of Control. Economic Journal, 123: 358 – 400.
Cronin, K.A., (2012). Prosocial behaviour in animals: the influence of social relationships, communication and rewards, Animal Behaviour, 84: 1085 – 1093.
Cuesta, M.B., and Budria, S. (2015). Income Deprivation and Mental Well-Being: The Role of Non-Cognitive Skills, Economics and Human Biology, 17: 16–28. Davis, M.H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in
empathy, JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10: 85-105 Davis, M.H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a
multidimensional approach, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113–126.
Davis, M.H., Hall, J.A., and Meyer, M. (2003). The first year: Satisfaction, involvement, and persistence of new community volunteers. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 248–260.
Davis, M.H., Mitchell, K.V., Hall, J A., Lothert, J., Snapp, T., Meyer, M., 1999. Empathy, expectations, and situational preferences: personality influences on the decision to participate in volunteer helping behaviors. Journal of
Personality, 67: 469–503.
de Waal, F.B.M. (2008). Putting the altruism back into altruism: The evolution of empathy, Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 279–300.
de Waal, F.B.M. (2012). The antiquity of empathy, Science, 336(6083), 874–876. Diener, E., and Larsen, R.J. (1984). Temporal Stability and Cross-Situational
Consistency of Positive and Negative Affect, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 47: 871–883.
Edele, A., Dziobek, I., and Keller, M. (2013). Explaining altruistic sharing in the dictator game: The role of affective empathy, cognitive empathy, and justice sensitivity, Learning and Individual Differences, 24: 96–102.
Einolf, C.J. (2008). Empathic concern and prosocial behaviors: A test of experimental results using survey data, Social Sciences Research, 37: 1267–1279.
Eisenberg, N., and Miller, P. A. (1987). The relation of empathy to prosocial and related behaviors, Psychological Bulletin, 101: 91–119.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R.A., Murphy, B., Karbon, M., Maszk, P., Smith, M., O’Boyle, C. and Suh, K. (1994). The relations of emotionality and regulation to dispositional and situation empathy-related responding, Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 66: 776–797.
Fehr, E., and Schmidt, K.M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition and cooperation, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114: 817–868.
Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A. (2005). Income and Well-Being: An Empirical Analysis of the Comparison Income Effect, Journal of Public Economics, 89: 997–1019. Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A., and Frijters, P. (2004). How Important is Methodology for
the Estimates of the Determinants of Happiness? Economic Journal, 114: 641– 659.
Fogassi, L., (2011). The mirror neuron system: How cognitive functions emerge from motor organization, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 77: 66– 75.
Fontaine, P. (2001). The changing place of empathy in welfare economics, History
of Political Economy, 33: 387–409.
Frank, R.H. (1985). The Demand for Unobservable and Other Non-positional Goods,
American Economic Review, 75: 101–116.
Kahneman, D., and Sugden, R. (2006). Experienced Utility as a Standard of Policy Evaluation. Environmental and Resource Economics, 32: 161 – 181.
Gerdes, K.E., Segal, E.A., and Lietz, C.A. (2010). Conceptualizing and Measuring Empathy, British Journal of Social Work, 40: 2326 – 2343.
Keum, S., and Shin, H.S. (2016). Rodent models for studying empathy, Neurobiology
of Learning and Memory, 135: 22–26.
Khalil, E.L. (2011). The mirror neuron paradox: How far is understanding from mimicking? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 77: 86–96.
Klimecki, O.M., Mayer, S.V., Jusyte, A., Scheeff, J., and Schönenberg, M. (2016). Empathy promotes altruistic behavior in economic interactions, Scientific
Reports, 6, 31961; doi: 10.1038/srep31961.
Knabe, A., and Rätzel, S. (2010). Income, happiness, and the disutility of labor,
Economics Letters, 107: 77–79.
Krueger, A.B., and Schkade, D.A (2008). The Reliability of Subjective Well-being Measures. Journal of Public Economics, 92; 1833–1845.
Lanzetta, J.T., Englis, B.G. (1989). Expectations of cooperation and competition and their effects on observers’ vicarious emotional responses. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 56: 543–554.
Lawrence E.J., Shaw, P., Baker, D., Baron-Cohen, S., and David, A.S. (2004). Measuring Empathy: Reliability and Validity of the Empathy Quotient.
Psychological Medicine, 34: 911–919.
Luttmer, E. (2005). Neighbors as Negatives: Relative Earnings and Well-being.
Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120: 963–1002.
McCrae, R.R., and John, P.O. (1992). An Introduction to the Five-Factor Model and its Applications, Journal of Personality, 60: 175–215.
Molnar-Szakacs, I. (2011). From actions to empathy and morality – A neural perspective, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 77; 76–85. Neumann, D.L., Chan, R.C.K, and Boyle, G.J., Wang, Y., Westbury, H.R. (2015).
Measures of Empathy: Self-Report, Behavioral, and Neuroscientific Approaches, Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Constructs, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-386915-9.00010-3
Neumark, D., and Postlewaite, A. (1998). Relative Income Concerns and the Rise in Married Women's Employment, Journal of Public Economics, 70: 157–183. Oswald, A.J., and Wu, S. (2010). Objective Confirmation of Subjective Measures of
Human Well-being: Evidence from the USA. Science, 327: 576–579.
Preckel, K., Kanske, P., Singer, T. (2018). On the interaction of social affect and cognition: empathy, compassion and theory of mind, Current Opinion in
Behavioral Sciences, 19: 1–6.
Rätzel, S. (2012). Labour Supply, Life Satisfaction, and the (Dis)Utility of Work,
The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 114: 1160–1181.
Rizzolatti, G., and Craighero, L. (2004). The mirror neuron system, Annual Review
of Neuroscience, 27: 169 – 92.
Rosenberg, M. (1985). Self-Concept and Psychological Well-Being in Adolescence. In R. L. Leahy (Ed.), The Development of the Self (pp. 205-246). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Senik, C. (2004). When Information Dominates Comparison: A Panel Data Analysis Using Russian Subjective Data. Journal of Public Economics, 88: 2099–2123.
Singer, T., Seymour, B., O’Doherty, J.P., Stephan, K.E., Dolan, R.J., and Frith, C.D. (2006). Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others, Nature, 439: 466–469.
Smith, A. (1759). The theory of moral sentiments. Cambridge University Press, Printed 2004, Edinburg, UK.
Smith, R. H., Parrot, W. G., Diener, E. F., Hoyle, R. H., and Kim, S. H. (1999). Dispositional Envy, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25: 1007– 1020.
Solnick, S., and Hemenway, D. (2005). Are Positional Concerns Stronger in Some Domains Than in Others? American Economic Review, 95: 147–151.
Sugden, R. (2001). Beyond Sympathy and Empathy: Adam Smith’s concept of fellow-feeling, Economics and Philosophy, 18: 63–87.
Tesser, A. (1991). Emotion in social comparison and refection processes. In Social Comparison. Contemporary Theory and Research, Suls J, Wills TA (eds). Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, Pages, 115–145.
Tesser, A., Millar, M., and Moore, J. (1988). Some Affective Consequences of Social Comparison and Reflection Processes: The Pain and Pleasure of Being Close,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54: 49–61.
VanderZee, K., Buunk, B., and Sanderman, R. (1996). The relationship between social comparison processes and personality, Personality and Individual
Differences, 20: 551–565.
Vrabel, J.K., Zeigler-Hill, V. and Southard, A.C. (2018). Self-Esteem and Envy: Is State Self-Esteem Instability Associated with the Benign and Malicious Forms of Envy? Personality and Individual Differences, 123: 100–104.
White, J.B., Langer, E.J., Yariv, L., Welch, J.C. (2006). Frequent Social Comparisons and Destructive Emotions and Behaviors: The Dark Side of Social Comparisons, Journal of Adult Development, 13: 36–44.
Zillmann. D., Cantor, J.R. (1977). Affective responses to the emotions of a protagonist, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13: 155–165.
Appendix A. The Scenario and Example Choice Situation
Figure Appendix A. The Scenario and Example Choice Situation
In this part of the questionnaire we require you to choose which society you consider to be the best one for an imaginary person living two generations into the future. You can, for example, imagine a grandchild, great grandchild or another relative that you are choosing for. By ‘best’ we mean the society in which your future relative will be most content.
· The difference between the societies is the income level or the amount of consumption for a certain good of your future relative, and the average income and consumption of the society.
· The variety of goods and their prices are the same for both societies. For 100 TRY you can buy the same goods and the same amount in both societies. Prices are expressed in today’s price level.
· It is important that you focus your answer on what is in the best interest of the imagined person, and nothing else. There is no “correct” response to these questions and we ask you to reflect on the choices carefully.
Example: In the example below your future relative earns 200 TRY/month more in society A compared
with society B. You can also see that your future relative earns 500 TRY/month less than the average income in society A and 300 TRY/month more than the average in society B.
Society A: – Your relative’s income is 2,000 TRY/month after tax
– The average income in society is 2,500 TRY/month after tax Society B: – Your relative’s income 1,800 TRY/month after tax
– The average income in society is 1,500 TRY/month after tax
We require you to choose which society you consider to be the best one for your future relative; that is, the society in which your future relative will be most content. It is important that you focus your answer solely on this; that is: which society is the best for your future relative? You should not consider which society is
Appendix B.1. The Survey Experiment (After-Tax Income/Month)
Income of your future relative (1)
In the situation below, make a choice between society A and society B for your future relative. Society A: – Your relative’s income is 2000 TRY/month after tax
– The average income in society is 2200 TRY/month after tax Society B: – Your relative’s income is 1800 TRY/month after tax
– The average income in society is 1400 TRY/month after tax
Everything, including the price levels, are same in two societies. In both societies your relative works 40 hours per week and this is equal to the average weekly work hours. Choose the society in which your future relative will be most content.
Society A Society B
Income of your future relative (2)
In the situation below, make a choice between society A and society B for your future relative. Society A: – Your relative’s income is 2000 TRY/month after tax
– The average income in society is 2200 TRY/month after tax Society B: – Your relative’s income is 1550 TRY/month after tax
– The average income in society is 1300 TRY/month after tax
Everything, including the price levels, are same in two societies. In both societies your relative works 40 hours per week and this is equal to the average weekly work hours. Choose the society in which your future relative will be most content.
Society A Society B
Income of your future relative (3)
In the situation below, make a choice between society A and society B for your future relative. Society A: – Your relative’s income is 2000 TRY/month after tax
– The average income in society is 2200 TRY/month after tax Society B: – Your relative’s income is 1220 TRY/month after tax
– The average income in society is 1160 TRY/month after tax
Everything, including the price levels, are same in two societies. In both societies your relative works 40 hours per week and this is equal to the average weekly work hours. Choose the society in which your future relative will be most content.
Appendix B.2. The Summary of Survey Experiment
I II III
After Tax Income/Month (TRY)
Society A 2,000 2,200
Society B(1) 1,800 1,400 0.250
Society B(2) 1,550 1,300 0.500
Society B(3) 1,220 1,160 0.750
Market Value of a Car (TRY)
Society A 30,000 33,000
Society B(1) 28,000 25,036 0.250
Society B(2) 25,000 22,904 0.500
Society B(3) 22,000 21,829 0.750
Working Hours (Week/Hours)
Society A 40 36 Society B(1) 42.5 46 0.250 Society B(2) 47 51 0.500 Society B(3) 61 64 0.750 Poverty Rates (%) Society A 6.0 4.5 Society B(1) 6.7 7.3 0.250 Society B(2) 8.0 8.5 0.500 Society B(3) 9.2 9.5 0.750
Table Appendix B.2. Summary of the Experiment
Own Level of Consumption Average Level of Others' Consumption Assigned Implicit Degree of Positionality
Appendix C.1. Empathy Quotient (Baron-Cohen and Wheelwright, 2004)
Here indicate how closely you agree with the statement by checking one of the boxes on the scale between 1 to 4. 1 means strongly agree, and 4 means you strongly disagree. If your views fall somewhere in between, you can choose any number in between. The control/filter questions are marked with italics.
1. I can easily tell if someone else wants to enter a conversation. 2. I prefer animals to humans.
3. I try to keep up with the current trends and fashions.
4. I find it difficult to explain to others things that I understand easily, when they don’t understand it first time.
5. I dream most nights.
6. I really enjoy caring for other people.
7. I try to solve my own problems rather than strongly discussing them with others. 8. I find it hard to know what to do in a social situation.
9. I am at my best first thing in the morning.
10. People often tell me that I went too far in driving my point home in a discussion. 11. It doesn’t bother me too much if I am late meeting a friend.
12. Friendships and relationships are just too difficult, so I tend not to bother with them 13. I would never break a law, no matter how minor.
14. I often find it difficult to judge if something is rude or polite.
15. In a conversation, I tend to focus on my own thoughts rather than on what my listener