| Literature DB >> 31860691 |
Dorsa Amir1, Claudia Valeggia1, Mahesh Srinivasan2, Lawrence S Sugiyama3, Yarrow Dunham4.
Abstract
Subjective Social Status (SSS) is a robust predictor of psychological and physiological outcomes, frequently measured as self-reported placement on the MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status. Despite its importance, however, there are still open questions regarding how early into ontogeny SSS can be measured, and how well SSS measures can be extended to non-Western and small-scale populations. Here, we investigate the internal consistency of responses to the MacArthur ladder across four cultures by comparing responses to more explicit social comparison questions. We conduct these comparisons among children and adolescents, ages 4 to 18, in India, the United States, and Argentina, in addition to those in two indigenous communities of the Ecuadorean Amazon marked by differing degrees of market integration (total N = 363). We find that responses are consistent in all populations, except for the more remote forager-horticulturalist Ecuadorian community. We also find that, consistent with findings among American adolescents, SSS declines with age. We then assess the test-retest reliability of the MacArthur Scale across two time-points: a subset of Indian participants (N = 43) within one week, and a larger, second sample of Indian participants after one year (N = 665). We find that responses are highly correlated within one week (ρ = 0.47), and moderately correlated after one year (ρ = 0.32). These results suggest that responses to the MacArthur ladder are internally consistent and reliable among children across a range of diverse populations, though care must be taken in utilizing these measures among children of non-industrial, small-scale societies.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31860691 PMCID: PMC6924674 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0226550
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Standardized Cronbach’s alphas for the Social Comparison items across regions.
| Region: | Overall | Argentina | Cross-Cutucú Ecuador | India | Upano Valley Ecuador | USA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Standardized alpha: | 0.70 | 0.70 | 0.67 | 0.59 | 0.79 | 0.53 |
Descriptive summary of all participants.
| Country | Population | Economy | Market Integration | N (males) | Mean age (range) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Toba/Qom | Wage labor | High | 69 (31 male) | 10.7 (4–18) | |
| Cross-Cutucú Shuar | Horticulture, fishing, hunting, gathering, limited agro-pastoralism and sporadic wage labor | Low | 58 (31 male) | 10.8 (5–17) | |
| Upano Valley Shuar | Horticulture, fishing, hunting, gathering, limited agro-pastoralism and sporadic wage labor | Medium | 81 (43 male) | 10.6 (5–17) | |
| Vadodara | Professional, trade/service, labor | High | 86 (43 male) | 9.8 (6–14) | |
| Vadodara | Professional, trade/service, labor | High | 665 (387 male) | 13.1 (6–17) | |
| New Haven | Professional, trade/service, labor | High | 69 (31 male) | 8.9 (4–15) | |
Number of participants by age, across the full sample.
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | |
Effects and standard errors from linear models predicting ladder placement in the full sample (Model 1), the full sample with interactions (Model 2).
The baseline for region is the United States. Table also shows goodness of fit.
| Model 1 | Model 2 | |
|---|---|---|
| (Intercept) | 2.55 | 1.24 |
| (0.60) | (1.54) | |
| Social Comparison Index (SCI) | 0.21 | 0.40 |
| (0.07) | (0.22) | |
| India | -0.45 | 1.44 |
| (0.47) | (2.03) | |
| Upano Valley Ecuador | 1.03 | 0.27 |
| (0.48) | (1.85) | |
| Argentina | 1.21 | 3.39 |
| (0.50) | (2.03) | |
| Cross-Cutucú Ecuador | 0.74 | 5.09 |
| (0.54) | (2.06) | |
| SCI | -0.27 | |
| (0.28) | ||
| SCI | 0.08 | |
| (0.25) | ||
| SCI | -0.30 | |
| (0.27) | ||
| SCI | -0.57 | |
| (0.27) | ||
| R2 | 0.09 | 0.12 |
| Adj. R2 | 0.07 | 0.09 |
| Num. obs. | 346 | 346 |
| RMSE | 2.86 | 2.83 |
***p < 0.001
**p < 0.01
*p < 0.05
Statistical models
Effects and standard errors from a linear model predicting ladder placement with age as a predictor (Model 3) and the interaction between age and country (Model 4).
The baseline for region is the United States. Table also shows goodness of fit.
| Model 3 | Model 4 | |
|---|---|---|
| (Intercept) | 1.26 | 1.36 |
| (0.74) | (1.31) | |
| Social Comparison Index (SCI) | 0.20 | 0.20 |
| (0.07) | (0.07) | |
| India | -0.58 | -0.89 |
| (0.47) | (1.79) | |
| Upano Valley Ecuador | 0.70 | 0.83 |
| (0.49) | (1.70) | |
| Argentina | 0.92 | 0.46 |
| (0.51) | (1.62) | |
| Cross-Cutucú Ecuador | 0.39 | 0.76 |
| (0.55) | (1.97) | |
| Age | 0.16 | 0.15 |
| (0.05) | (0.13) | |
| India | 0.03 | |
| (0.19) | ||
| Upano Valley Ecuador | -0.01 | |
| (0.17) | ||
| Argentina | 0.04 | |
| (0.16) | ||
| Cross-Cutucú Ecuador | -0.03 | |
| (0.19) | ||
| R2 | 0.11 | 0.11 |
| Adj. R2 | 0.09 | 0.08 |
| Num. obs. | 344 | 344 |
| RMSE | 2.83 | 2.85 |
***p < 0.001
**p < 0.01
*p < 0.05