Psychological foundations of human status allocation

Abstract

Competing theories of status allocation posit divergent conceptual foundations upon which human status hierarchies are built. We argue that the three prominent theories of status allocation—competence-based models, conflict-based models, and dual-pathway models—can be distinguished by the importance that they place on four key affordance dimensions: benefit-generation ability, benefit-generation willingness, cost-infliction ability, and cost-infliction willingness. In the current study, we test competing theoretical predictions about the relative centrality of each affordance dimension to clarify the foundations of human status allocation. We examined the extent to which American raters’ (n = 515) perceptions of the benefit-generation and cost-infliction affordances of 240 personal characteristics predict the status impacts of those same personal characteristics as determined by separate groups of raters (n = 2,751) across 14 nations. Benefit-generation and cost-infliction affordances were both positively associated with status allocation at the zero-order level. However, the unique effects of benefit-generation affordances explained most of the variance in status allocation when competing with cost-infliction affordances, whereas cost-infliction affordances were weak or null predictors. This finding suggests that inflicting costs without generating benefits does not reliably increase status in the minds of others among established human groups around the world. Overall, the findings bolster competence-based theories of status allocation but offer little support for conflict-based and dual-pathway models.

Gossip about Coronavirus: Infection status and norm adherence shape social responses

“…Further supporting the latter, and as expected, gossip receivers perceived targets described as having violated norms negatively on essential person perception dimensions (low in morality, sociability, competence, and unexpectedly dominance; Abele et al, 2016; Fiske et al, 2007; Pinto et al, 2010). A potential reason for these norm violations decreasing dominance could be that such violations are mostly perceived as harmful for others as opposed to providing benefits, the latter is found essential for status and power affordances (Durkee et al, 2020; Van Kleef et al, 2012). Extending to behavioral intentions, people were more intent on punishing targets described as having violated norms.…”

Dominance is necessary to explain human status hierarchies - Extended online version and supplemental

“…Introduction Durkee et al (2020) (hereafter, DLB) conducted a cross-cultural investigation of people's beliefs about how traits, behaviors, and practices that enhance an individual's perceived ability to generate benefits (prestige) or inflict costs (dominance) promote perceived social status in humans. Here, we identify multicollinearity in DLB's statistical analyses and explain how this statistical problem renders their results inconclusive as to how benefit-delivery and cost-infliction contribute to status allocation.…”

Dominance is necessary to explain human status hierarchies [exposition of three concerns]

“…Introduction Durkee et al (2020) (hereafter, DLB) conducted a cross-cultural investigation of people's beliefs about how traits, behaviors, and practices that enhance an individual's perceived ability to generate benefits (prestige) or inflict costs (dominance) promote perceived social status in humans. Below, in Section S1, we identify multicollinearity in DLB's statistical analyses and explain how this statistical problem renders their results inconclusive as to how benefit-delivery and cost-infliction contribute to status allocation.…”