Gregg, A. P., Sedikides, C., & Pegler, A

S Self-Esteem and Social Status: as self-esteem (Rosenberg 1965). The latter type Dominance Theory and of evaluation, when positive, might be labeled Hierometer Theory? “social esteem.” One important question is how the two are linked. Aiden Gregg1, Constantine Sedikides2 and Everyday intuition suggests, and classic theo- Adam Pegler1 ries propose, that self-esteem derives from social 1University of Southampton, Southampton, UK esteem (Cooley 1902). However, people do not 2Psychology Department, University of absorb social information passively, but actively Southampton, Southampton, UK process it in a manner that protects their self- esteem (Sedikides and Gregg 2008). In addition, whereas self-esteem is inherently unitary – the self Synonyms as a whole being a singularity – social esteem is inherently complex. Three fundamental dimen- Narcissism; Prestige; Self-regard; Social rank sions stand out. First, people may be accorded respect and admiration, in virtue of being compe- tent or powerful (social status; Fiske 2010). Sec- Definitions ond, people may be liked and appreciated, in virtue of being cooperative and caring (social Self-esteem denotes the positivity of one’s overall inclusion; DeWall et al. 2011). Third, people self-evaluation. Status denotes the social prestige may be fancied and pursued, in virtue of being one gains in virtue of being respected and fertile or rich (reproductive fitness; Shackelford admired. Dominance theory and hierometer the- et al. 2005). ory, drawing on evolutionary theory, specify how Several theories address the link between self-esteem and status might interrelate. social esteem and self-esteem and the evolutionary function that this link might serve. However, the theories differ in focusing on one or another of Introduction these three fundamental dimensions of value. For example, sociometer theory (Leary et al. 1995)in Human beings, as self-conscious animals, evalu- its original form focuses on social inclusion, but ate themselves positively or negatively. In addi- later extensions of the theory to romantic relation- tion, as social animals, they also evaluate one ships focus on reproductive fitness (Bale and another positively or negatively. The former type Archer 2013). Here, we discuss two theories that of evaluation, when positive, is commonly known focus on social status as a fundamental dimension # Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018 T. K. Shackelford, V. A. Weekes-Shackelford (eds.), Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_1450-1 2 Self-Esteem and Social Status: Dominance Theory and Hierometer Theory? of value: dominance theory and hierometer the- impulse to physically prevail over other animals ory. Both theories claim to identify aspects of has been largely transformed into an impulse to mind and behavior that have arisen in response symbolically evaluate oneself as better than other to recurrent adaptive challenges present in the people – which dominance theory characterizes as human ancestral environment. self-esteem. However, it should be noted that this definition of self-esteem – perceived relative superiority – differs from standard definitions of Dominance Theory self-esteem, which involving seeing oneself as individually possessing adequate worth Dominance theory (Barkow 1980) seeks to (Rosenberg 1965). explain the striving for self-esteem in human Dominance theory also specifies likely ante- beings as an elaboration of the more primitive cedents of self-esteem. Given that human beings strivings for social ascendancy in nonhuman ani- are cultural animals (Baumeister 2005), their mals. Most animal societies are hierarchically capacity to please real or imagined others organized (Pusey and Packer 1997); that is, con- (including, in aboriginal societies, ancestors and specifics spontaneously rank order themselves in gods), by meeting expectations that are normative ways that determine their priority of access to in their societies, is likely to be one key anteced- resources and mates. Doing so permits members ent. Doing so can be understood as a means of of those societies, whatever their rank, to avail of gaining prestige in the eyes of others, as opposed the adaptive advantages of reduced aggression to attempting to achieve dominance over them (Kaufmann 1983). Human societies are likewise using raw power (De Waal-Andrews et al. 2015). stratified (Fiske 2010). However, given the greater Thus, whereas for most nonhuman animals (with cognitive sophistication of human beings (Gregg possible exceptions among higher primates such and Sedikides 2018), the mental mechanisms as chimpanzees or bonobos), their rank in the underlying their social stratification, although social hierarchy is only the result of power- still shaped by evolutionary forces, are also liable mediated dominance; in humans it can also be to contain novel elements. the result of consensus-mediated prestige. For Dominance theory starts with the observation this reason, indeed, dominance theory might be that rank order in animals can be largely charac- better labeled “prestige theory.” The drive for terized in terms of behavioral dominance or sub- dominance is what human self-esteem evolved mission. Whether through differences in ability, out of, not what currently underlies it. motivation, or personality (Hurd 2006), some animals succeed in asserting themselves over others, often through ritualized signaling instead of overt Hierometer Theory aggression. Accordingly, each animal’s rank order comes to reflect their level of comparative success Like dominance theory, hierometer theory in asserting themselves over time. Moreover, (Mahadevan et al. 2016) also postulates that self- given the overall adaptive advantages of occupy- esteem rises and falls in tandem with higher or ing a higher rank, it is plausible that some dedi- lower social status. However, it differs from dom- cated drive evolved to motivate animals toward inance theory in the account it gives of the adap- seizing opportunities, when available, to attain tive function of self-esteem and of the this rank. Human beings should be no exception motivational goals being pursued. In general, to this rule – and indeed, there is ample evidence whereas dominance theory invokes an absolute of a universal desire for social status among them drive toward social status, hierometer theory (Anderson et al. 2015). However, given that invokes a contingent one. human beings are also self-conscious organisms, Hierometer theory starts from the premise that, who contemplate themselves as well as their envi- although higher social status may be generally ronment, dominance theory postulates that the more conducive to survival and reproduction Self-Esteem and Social Status: Dominance Theory and Hierometer Theory? 3 than lower social status, it is nonetheless not gen- turn facilitates the expression of assertive or erally adaptive for people to strive perpetually for “dominant” behaviors. A further implication is higher social status, by invariably and inflexibly that, whereas dominance theory implies a com- seizing opportunities to contest their place in the pensatory dynamic – people will strive for self- hierarchy. The simple reason is that such contests esteem or prestige if they perceive one or the other can be lost as well as won; and with one’s survival to be too low (sociometer theory makes similar potentially at stake, the avoidance of catastrophic claims in respect of social inclusion; Leary et al. defeats is no less imperative as the securing of 1995), hierometer theory implies a consolidatory profitable victories. Accordingly, the decision as dynamic – people will strive for social status (via to whether or not to enter such a contest, if it is to assertive behavior) to the extent that they already be optimally adaptive, must depend on people’s possess it. actual competitive prospects, as best they can be Hierometer also goes further in postulating a determined. The situation is analogous to that role, not only for self-esteem but also for a variant arising in poker: all else equal, it makes more form of self-regard, namely, narcissism, con- sense to raise when in possession of a relatively ceived of as normally distributed trait as opposed good hand and to fold when in possession of a to a discrete clinical condition (Foster and relatively poor one. Hierometer theory postulates Campbell 2007). Narcissism is characterized by that the quality of one’s poker hand corresponds to grandiose self-views and exhibitionistic displays, one’s existing social status. Specifically, when an interest in exercising power and authority, and one’s social status is high, it makes more sense a tendency to feel entitled and to exploit others to escalate an incipient conflict assertively, (Ackerman et al. 2011). As such, it is nonetheless whereas, when it is low, it makes more sense to potentially suited to mediating the impact of de-escalate it acquiescently. This is because being social status on competitive behavior. already respected and admired (in a prestige hierarchy; or alternatively, being feared and obeyed in a dominance hierarchy) is a reliable sign that one Empirical Evidence for the Link Between has at one’s disposal sufficient material and social Social Status and Self-Esteem resources to compete successfully. Accordingly, behavioral assertiveness should covary with Despite the differences between dominance the- social status. How does self-esteem fit into this ory and hierometer theory,

Load more