Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science pp 1–6Cite as

Higher Status in Group

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:

Synonyms

Dominance; Informal leadership; Power; Prestige; Social hierarchy; Social rank; Social status; Sociometric status

Definition

Social status refers to differential degrees of social influence and rank in relation to other group members. This definition is used in the current entry. Note, however, that variations in definition exist across disciplines (and sometimes subfields): in some areas of research, for instance, social status is used to describe freely conferred deference or prestige, in contrast to the use of the term here to refer to more general influence that may or may not be associated with respect or prestige.

Introduction

From the most egalitarian societies to the formal organization of contemporary businesses, human groups are inherently structured by social hierarchy (Eibl-Eibesfeldt 2017; Mazur 1985; Von Rueden 2014). That is, differentiation in social rank – defined as relative position within a social hierarchy based on social influence and agency (Báles et...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

References

  • Adler, N. E., Boyce, T., Chesney, M. A., Cohen, S., Folkman, S., Kahn, R. L., & Syme, S. L. (1994). Socioeconomic status and health: The challenge of the gradient. American Psychologist, 49(1), 15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Alden Smith, E. (2004). Why do good hunters have higher reproductive success? Human Nature, 15(4), 343–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-004-1013-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C., & Kilduff, G. J. (2009a). The pursuit of status in social groups. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(5), 295–298. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01655.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C., & Kilduff, G. J. (2009b). Why do dominant personalities attain influence in face-to-face groups? The competence-signaling effects of trait dominance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(2), 491.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C., & Willer, R. (2014). Do status hierarchies benefit groups? A bounded functionalist account of status. In The psychology of social status (pp. 47–70). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C., Hildreth, J. A. D., & Howland, L. (2015). Is the desire for status a fundamental human motive? A review of the empirical literature. Psychological Bulletin, 141(3), 574.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Báles, R. F., Strodtbeck, F. L., Mills, T. M., & Roseborough, M. E. (1951). Channels of communication in small groups. American Sociological Review, 16(4), 461–468. https://doi.org/10.2307/2088276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barclay, P. (2013). Strategies for cooperation in biological markets, especially for humans. Evolution and Human Behavior, 34(3), 164–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barkow, J. H. (1975). Prestige and culture: A biosocial interpretation. Current Anthropology, 16(4), 553–572. https://doi.org/10.1086/201619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barkow, J. H. (1989). Darwin, sex, and status: Biological approaches to mind and culture. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Barkow, J. H. (2014). Prestige and the ongoing process of culture revision. In The psychology of social status (pp. 29–45). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, J., Rosenholtz, S. J., & Morris Zelditch, J. (1980). Status organizing processes. Annual Review of Sociology, 6(1), 479–508. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.06.080180.002403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blader, S. L., & Chen, Y.-R. (2014). What’s in a name? Status, power, and other forms of social hierarchy. In The psychology of social status (pp. 71–95). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bliege Bird, R., & Smith, E. (2005). Signaling theory, strategic interaction, and symbolic capital. Current Anthropology, 46(2), 221–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boehm, C. (2009). Hierarchy in the forest: The evolution of egalitarian behavior. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boone, J. L. (1998). The evolution of magnanimity: when is it better to give than to receive? Human Nature, 9, 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunderson, J. S., Van Der Vegt, G. S., Cantimur, Y., & Rink, F. (2016). Different views of hierarchy and why they matter: Hierarchy as inequality or as cascading influence. Academy of Management Journal, 59(4), 1265–1289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., & Henrich, J. (2010). Pride, personality, and the evolutionary foundations of human social status. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(5), 334–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.02.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., Foulsham, T., Kingstone, A., & Henrich, J. (2013). Two ways to the top: Evidence that dominance and prestige are distinct yet viable avenues to social rank and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(1), 103.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, D. C., Milic, M. S., Mills, P. J., Bardwell, W. A., Ziegler, M. G., & Dimsdale, J. E. (2010). Endothelial function: The impact of objective and subjective socioeconomic status on flow-mediated dilation. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 39(3), 222–231.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (2017). Human ethology. Abingdon, United Kingdom, Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, L. E. (1994). Social stratification and socioeconomic inequality, Vol. 2: Reproductive and interpersonal aspects of dominance and status. Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group, California, United States.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27, 31–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghaed, S. G., & Gallo, L. C. (2007). Subjective social status, objective socioeconomic status, and cardiovascular risk in women. Health Psychology, 26(6), 668.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hawley, P. H. (1999). The ontogenesis of social dominance: A strategy-based evolutionary perspective. Developmental Review, 19(1), 97–132. https://doi.org/10.1006/drev.1998.0470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawley, P. H. (2002). Social dominance and prosocial and coercive strategies of resource control in preschoolers. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26(2), 167–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250042000726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hays, N. A., & Bendersky, C. (2015). Not all inequality is created equal: Effects of status versus power hierarchies on competition for upward mobility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(6), 867.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Henrich, J., & Gil-White, F. J. (2001). The evolution of prestige: Freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22(3), 165–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(00)00071-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110(2), 265.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kniffin, K. M., & Wilson, D. S. (2004). The effect of nonphysical traits on the perception of physical attractiveness: Three naturalistic studies. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25(2), 88–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kniffin, K., Wansink, B., Griskevicius, V., & Sloan Wilson, D. (2014). Beauty is in the in-group of the beholded: Intergroup differences in the perceived attractiveness of leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(6), 1143–1153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruger, D. J., & Fitzgerald, C. J. (2011). Reproductive strategies and relationship preferences associated with prestigious and dominant men. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(3), 365–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.10.022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leary, M. R., Jongman-Sereno, K. P., & Diebels, K. J. (2014). The pursuit of status: A self-presentational perspective on the quest for social value. In The psychology of social status (pp. 159–178). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lukaszewski, A. W., Simmons, Z. L., Anderson, C., & Roney, J. R. (2016). The role of physical formidability in human social status allocation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(3), 385.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mast, M. S., & Hall, J. A. (2004). Who is the boss and who is not? Accuracy of judging status. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 28(3), 145–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazur, A. (1985). A biosocial model of status in face-to-face primate groups. Social Forces, 64(2), 377–402. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/64.2.377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton, J. Q. (2005). Meat sharing for coalitional support. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26(2), 137–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Redhead, D. (2016). Social hierarchy & social networks: The effects of prestige and dominance within a developmental context. Masters, Durham University. http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/11761/

  • Reyes-Garcia, V., Molina, J. L., Broesch, J., Calvet, L., Huanca, T., Saus, J., … TAPS Bolivian Study Team. (2008). Do the aged and knowledgeable men enjoy more prestige? A test of predictions from the prestige-bias model of cultural transmission. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29(4), 275–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sijtsema, J. J., Veenstra, R., Lindenberg, S., & Salmivalli, C. (2009). Empirical test of bullies’ status goals: Assessing direct goals, aggression, and prestige. Aggressive Behavior, 35(1), 57–67. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20282.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sugiyama, L. S., & Sugiyama, M. S. (2003). Social roles, prestige, and health risk. Human Nature, 14(2), 165–190.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tay, L., & Diener, E. (2011). Needs and subjective well-being around the world. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 354.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Von Rueden, C. (2014). The roots and fruits of social status in small-scale human societies. In The psychology of social status (pp. 179–200). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Rueden, C., & Jaeggi, A. V. (2016). Men’s status and reproductive success in 33 nonindustrial societies: Effects of subsistence, marriage system, and reproductive strategy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(39), 10824–10829. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1606800113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Rueden, C., Gurven, M., & Kaplan, H. (2008). The multiple dimensions of male social status in an Amazonian society. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29(6), 402–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Rueden, C., Gurven, M., & Kaplan, H. (2010). Why do men seek status? Fitness payoffs to dominance and prestige. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2010.2145.

  • Weisfeld, G. E., Bloch, S. A., & Bloch, S. A. (1984). Possible determinants of social dominance among adolescent girls. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 144(1), 115–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiessner, P. (2005). Norm enforcement among the Ju/’hoansi Bushmen. Human Nature, 16(2), 115–145.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Willer, R. (2009). Groups reward individual sacrifice: The status solution to the collective action problem. American Sociological Review, 74(1), 23–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wrangham, R. W. (1980). An ecological model of female-bonded primate groups. Behaviour, 75(3), 262–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Human Behavior, Ecology and Culture, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany

    Daniel Redhead

  2. Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA

    Joey T. Cheng

  3. Department of Psychology, University of Essex, Colchester, UK

    Rick O’Gorman

Authors
  1. Daniel Redhead
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joey T. Cheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rick O’Gorman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Redhead .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Oakland University, Rochester, MI, USA

    Todd K. Shackelford

  2. Rochester, MI, USA

    Viviana A. Weekes-Shackelford

Section Editor information

  1. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA

    Kevin Kniffin

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Redhead, D., Cheng, J.T., O’Gorman, R. (2019). Higher Status in Group. In: Shackelford, T., Weekes-Shackelford, V. (eds) Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_3495-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_3495-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-16999-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-16999-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Behavioral Science and PsychologyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation