Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38051711›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Rising and falling on the social ladder: The bidimensional social mobility beliefs scale.

Juan Matamoros-Lima, Guillermo B Willis, Miguel Moya

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Juan Matamoros-LimaMind, Brain and Behavior Research Center (CIMCYC), University of Granada, Granada, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-6669-8745
Guillermo B WillisMind, Brain and Behavior Research Center (CIMCYC), University of Granada, Granada, Spain.
Miguel MoyaMind, Brain and Behavior Research Center (CIMCYC), University of Granada, Granada, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent works in the field of Social Psychology have shown the importance of studying subjective social mobility from different perspectives. In the literature about subjective societal mobility, most of the research is focused on the mobility-immobility framing. However, several authors suggested studying social mobility beliefs effects differentiating according to mobility's trajectory, that is, upward (i.e., improving status over time) and downward (i.e., getting worse in status over time). The present research was motivated by the lack of measures that discriminate between beliefs in upward and downward societal mobility. Across two studies using different samples of the Spanish adult population, we examined both dimensions of social mobility beliefs and tested their predictive validity on other related constructs. In Study 1 (N = 164), with an EFA, we corroborated the independence between the two types of mobility. The internal structure was confirmed by a CFA in Study 2 (N = 400). Furthermore, it was shown that upward and downward mobility beliefs are differently related to other related constructs. The results from Studies 1-2 showed good convergent validity. In all correlations with the different constructs (attitudes towards inequality, meritocratic beliefs, justification of the economic system, and status anxiety) we found opposite direction effects for both types of societal mobility (upward and downward). The development of this new instrument can help to deepen our understanding of the psychosocial consequences of subjective social mobility, as well as to differentiate two processes that may have different consequences.

Indexed as

AttitudeSocial MobilityAnxietyPsychology, Social

Identifiers

PMID38051711
PMCPMC10697514

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.