Table 2.1A. Breakdown on control questions comprehension by subjects (percentage of total subjects)
Number of trials on Question 2 Number of
Observa tions from 4 subjects are missing. If a subject failed to correctly answer a control question in five tries, the resea rch assistant a ssigned to them will expla in the entire ga me. Research a ssistance only provided guidance in solving the control questions when subjects a re wrong in the first pla ce. A few mista kes in the first tria l could be a ttributed to the small print on the materials used as reference.
Table 2.2A. Wilcoxon signed rank test on self-perceived status dimension
Dimensions Signed ranks test
Interpretation for Table 2.2A: Positive test values indicate that the self-perceived status dimension on the left are ranked higher than the self-perceived status dimension on the right.
Negative test values indicate the self-perceived status dimension on the left is ranked lower than the self-perceived status dimension on the right. For example, success = wealth yields a value of 7.332, meaning that in general villagers tend to perceive their own success at higher rank than their own wealth. Similarly, in education = extraversion that yields a value of -7.990 indicates that in general villagers tend to perceive their own education at lower rank than their extraversion rank.
69
Figure 2.1A. Success dimension dispersion: Self-rank vs, group rank
Correlation: 0.35***, z = -2.369**
Interpretation of Figure 2.1A: The fitted line indicates that there is low positive correlation between self-perceived rank in success dimension with the success status assigned by the 8 villagers in a session. The scatter points at the bottom of the graph indicate that there are villagers the perceived themselves as the least successful villager among the 9 villagers, but the other 8 villagers place this villager at higher status ranking. The scatter points at the top of the graph shows the villagers that perceived themselves as the most successful villagers among the 9 villagers.
70
Figure 2.2A. Wealth dimension dispersion: Self-rank vs. group rank
Correlation: 0.41*** z= -9.52***
Interpretation of Figure 2.2A: The fitted line indicates that there is low positive correlation between self-perceived rank in wealth with the wealth status assigned by the 8 villagers in a session. The scatter points at the bottom of the graph indicate that there are villagers the perceived themselves as the least wealthy villager among the 9 villagers, but the other 8 villagers place this villager at higher status ranking. The scatter points at the top of the graph shows the villagers that perceived themselves as the wealthiest villagers among the 9 villagers. The scatter points tend to populate the bottom half of the fitted line indicating that villagers are more likely to self-efface the status of their wealth.
71
Figure 2.3A. Education dimension dispersion: Self-rank vs. group rank
Correlation: 0.51*** z = -5.70***
Interpretation of Figure 2.3A: The fitted line indicates that there is moderately positive correlation between self-perceived rank in education with the education status assigned by the 8 villagers in a session. The scatter points at the bottom of the graph indicate that there are villagers the perceived themselves as the least educated villager among the 9 villagers, but the other 8 villagers place this villager at higher status ranking. The scatter points at the top of the graph shows the villagers that perceived themselves as the most educated villagers among the 9 villagers.
72
Figure 2.4A. Physical fitness dimension dispersion: Self-rank vs. group rank
Correlation: 0.44*** z= 0.941
Interpretation of Figure 2.4A: The fitted line indicates that there is low positive correlation between self-perceived rank in physical fitness with the physical fitness status assigned by the 8 villagers in a session. The scatter points at the bottom of the graph indicate that there are villagers the perceived themselves as the least physically fit villager among the 9 villagers, but the other 8 villagers place this villager at higher status ranking. The scatter points at the top of the graph shows the villagers that perceived themselves as the most physically villagers among the 9 villagers.
73
Figure 2.5A. Extraversion dimension dispersion: Self-rank vs. group rank
Correlation: 0.13**; z = 6.2***
Interpretation of Figure 2.5A: The fitted line indicates that there is very low positive correlation between self-perceived rank in extraversion with the extraversion status assigned by the 8 villagers in a session. The scatter points at the bottom of the graph indicate that there are villagers the perceived themselves as the least extravert villager among the 9 villagers, but the other 8 villagers place this villager at higher status ranking. The scatter points at the top of the graph shows the villagers that perceived themselves as the most extravert villagers among the 9 villagers.
74
Table 2.3A. Robustness check for success dimension (representative)
No controls GM’s status Village level effect
Total tokens from group members 0.0691 0.0603 0.0552 0.0683 0.0771 (0.0610) (0.0644) (0.0670) (0.0697) (0.0745)
Dispersion in IOS score -0.0440 -0.0907 -0.0421 -0.0987
(0.115) (0.121) (0.132) (0.142)
75
Table 2.4A. Robustness check for wealth dimension (representative) No controls GM’s Total tokens from group members 0.0709 0.0620 0.0543 0.0752 0.0759 (0.0608) (0.0616) (0.0644) (0.0661) (0.0703)
Dispersion in IOS score -0.0235 -0.0628 -0.0191 -0.0691
(0.116) (0.121) (0.131) (0.143)
76
Table 2.5A. Robustness check for education dimension (representative) No controls GM’s Total tokens from group members 0.0729 0.0639 0.0611 0.0789 0.0605 (0.0601) (0.0675) (0.0713) (0.0738) (0.0785)
Dispersion in IOS score -0.00494 -0.0336 0.00927 -0.0736
(0.116) (0.117) (0.133) (0.138)
77
Table 2.6A. Robustness check for physical fitness dimension (representative) No controls GM’s Total tokens from group members 0.0670 0.0663 0.0683 0.0813 0.0730 (0.0579) (0.0625) (0.0686) (0.0726) (0.0755)
Dispersion in IOS score 0.0170 0.00141 0.0544 0.00679
(0.119) (0.121) (0.133) (0.145)
78
Table 2.7A. Robustness check for outgoingness dimension (representative) No controls GM’s Total tokens from group members 0.0731 0.0730 0.0645 0.0696 0.0790 (0.0608) (0.0626) (0.0662) (0.0689) (0.0736)
Dispersion in IOS score -0.00835 -0.0334 0.0210 -0.0301
(0.119) (0.122) (0.133) (0.140)
79
Table 2.8A. Robustness check for success dimension (group members) No controls Rep’s
Status index control 0.875* 0.899** 0.894**
(self-perceived index) (0.444) (0.438) (0.443)
Representative’s status
Representative’s z-index 0.113 0.248 0.253 0.123 0.0935
(0.575) (0.557) (0.542) (0.585) (0.586)
80
Table 2.9A. Robustness check for wealth dimension (group members) No controls Rep’s
Status index control 0.829* 0.902* 0.916*
(self-perceived index) (0.458) (0.474) (0.490)
Representative’s status
Representative’s z-index 0.479 0.592 0.511 0.488 0.438
(0.486) (0.479) (0.487) (0.577) (0.597)
81
Table 2.10A. Robustness check for education dimension (group members) No controls Rep’s
Status index control -0.655 -0.674 -0.775
(self-perceived index) (0.447) (0.487) (0.517)
Representative’s status
Representative’s z-index 0.205 -0.130 -0.190 -0.0996 -0.162
(0.521) (0.545) (0.559) (0.703) (0.692)
82
Table 2.11A. Robustness check for physical fitness dimension (group members) No controls Rep’s
Status index control 0.0298 -0.0407 -0.104
(self-perceived index) (0.398) (0.397) (0.415)
Representative’s status
Representative’s z-index 0.896 0.636 0.644 1.023 0.968
(0.554) (0.591) (0.615) (0.733) (0.747)
83
Table 2.12A. Robustness check for outgoingness dimension (group members) No controls Rep’s
Status index control 0.259 0.270 0.215
(self-perceived index) (0.365) (0.383) (0.394)
Representative’s status
Representative’s z-index 0.354 0.208 0.145 0.0306 0.0103
(0.617) (0.630) (0.652) (0.686) (0.697)
84