Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T20:21:43.220Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The behavioral constellation of deprivation may be best understood as risk management

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2017

Dorsa Amir  and
Matthew R. Jordan
Dorsa Amir
Affiliation:
Yale University, Department of Anthropology, New Haven, CT 06511. [email protected]://www.dorsaamir.com
Matthew R. Jordan
Affiliation:
Yale University, Department of Psychology, New Haven, CT 06511. [email protected]://campuspress.yale.edu/mattjordan/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although the authors make a compelling case that early-life deprivation leads to present orientation, we believe that such behaviors may be better understood in terms of an underlying risk-management strategy, in which those who experience such deprivation are more risk-averse. The model we sketch accommodates the authors' present-orientation observations and further explains differences in risk preferences and social preferences.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 40 , 2017 , e316
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Jordan, R., Amir, D. & Rand, D. (2017) Childhood socioeconomic status has lasting effects on social, risk, and time preferences. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Kraus, M. W., Piff, P. K. & Keltner, D. (2009) Social class, sense of control, and social explanation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 97(6):992–1004.Google Scholar
Piff, P. K., Kraus, M. W., Côté, S., Cheng, B. H. & Keltner, D. (2010) Having less, giving more: The influence of social class on prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 99(5):771–84.Google Scholar