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 evolution- ary 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 ani- mals 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 hier- archy; 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, they make an identical picture? Hierometer theory postulates that self- prediction with respect to the link between social esteem evolved at least in part as a psychological status and self-esteem (or narcissism): levels of variable to mediate between the two – by the former should covary with levels of the latter. reflecting social status on the one hand, and by Moreover, this prediction should be borne out regulating behavioral assertiveness on the other. whether both variables are measured as traits or Note that, unlike dominance theory, hierometer states as well as when confounding factors are does not specify the achievement of higher self- taken into account. esteem per se as the motivational goal (although it Across diverse literatures and samples, the pre- does not deny the possibility). Rather, hierometer dicted positive correlation between social status theory postulates that self-esteem moderates and self-esteem emerges. For example, Faunce levels of motivation to escalate conflict so as to (1984) found that the social status of high-school optimize people’s chances of navigating social students in their class, as reflected in peer rank- hierarchies. Another way of putting this point is ings, especially when given by best friends, to say that, whereas dominance theory character- strongly predicted their self-esteem. Similarly, izes the achievement of self-esteem as a symbolic Smith et al. (1998, Study 3) found that, among proxy for the achievement of behavioral domi- university students, the belief that they were nance, hierometer theory characterizes the accorded respect by most members of their uni- achievement of self-esteem as the result of having versity community strongly predicted their self- previously attained higher social status, which in esteem. 4 Self-Esteem and Social Status: Dominance Theory and Hierometer Theory?

Nevertheless, given that social status covaries higher state self-esteem after being randomly with other antecedents of self-esteem – in partic- assigned to the role of a supervisor as opposed to ular with social inclusion – such zero-order posi- a subordinate. Similarly, Leary et al. (2001, Stud- tive correlations are open to alternative ies 1 and 2) orthogonally manipulated social sta- interpretation. However, several studies have tus and social inclusion by providing lab also confirmed that social status predicts self- participants with false feedback about how many esteem more specifically. For example, Fournier of their groupmates had nominated them as a (2009) found that, among high-school students, group leader or as group member, respectively. peer ratings of respect, prominence, and influence Both manipulations exerted roughly equal effects predicted self-esteem even after controlling for on state self-esteem, in the expected directions. peer ratings of likability and personal ratings of Finally, Mahadevan et al. (2018) conducted two social support. In addition, Huo et al. (2010) experiments in which college students were led to found, in a similar populations, that social status anticipate, on the basis of credible but bogus tests (bundled with peer approval) predicted self- of intellectual and emotional competence, that esteem (bundled with mental health) indepen- their future social status and social inclusion dently of social inclusion. Using cleaner operatio- would be markedly either high or low relative to nalizations, Mahadevan et al. (2016) likewise most of their peers. Care was taken to otherwise found that social status predicted self-esteem match the format and content of feedback deliv- independently of social inclusion. Furthermore, ered. Again, both manipulations exerted roughly the link persisted even after controlling for the equivalent effects on self-esteem. However, rais- clinical confounds of depression and anxiety. ing perceptions of future social status lead to a Finally, only higher social status, but not higher greater increase in narcissism than raising percep- social inclusion, independently predicted higher tions of future social inclusion did. This again narcissism, thereby highlighting the value of suggests that narcissism may be a more specific operationalizing self-regard in more than one tracker of social status. way and pointing to a unique functional role for Hence, on the basis of converging evidence of social status and narcissism. varying methodological strength, social status and Although dominance theory and hierometer self-esteem, as well as narcissism, are linked in the theory imply that social status – again, defined manner predicted by both dominance and as the respect and admiration afforded by others hierometer theory. (Anderson et al. 2015) – should predict self- esteem, they also imply that the objective founda- tions of social status, in particular, factors such as Conclusion income, education, and occupation, often termed socioeconomic status (SES), should also predict Within limits, how individuals are regarded by self-esteem. A meta-analysis by Twenge and others affects how they regard themselves. Campbell (2002) indeed established that SES Among other things, being respected and exhibits a small positive correlation on self- admired – enjoying social status – leads individ- esteem. More recently, Kraus and Park (2014) uals to like themselves more, to have higher self- reported that family income and personal educa- esteem, or even narcissism. Two theories, domi- tion weakly predicted self-esteem but also that the nance theory and hierometer theory, both make effect was wholly mediated by subjective percep- this prediction, each offering an evolutionary tions of one’s social standing. rationale for it. However, they differ on the precise The best evidence for the impact of social role they ascribe to self-esteem or narcissism, and status on self-esteem is experimental. how levels of status striving might be subse- Wojciszke and Struzynska-Kujalowicz (2007, quently affected. Nonetheless, the initial predic- Study 2) showed that participants, assigned the tion they make enjoys good empirical support. group task of deciding which of several candi- Most compellingly, experiments indicate that dates should be hired for a job, ended up with manipulations of social status exert a unique Self-Esteem and Social Status: Dominance Theory and Hierometer Theory? 5 impact on self-esteem and narcissism and find that ▶ Dominance Hierarchy Reduces Fighting the effects observed are comparable in size to ▶ Biosociology of Dominance and Deference those observed for manipulations of social inclu- sion (which concurrently support sociometer the- ory). Accordingly, there are solid grounds to References propose that the function of self-esteem and nar- cissism might be, at least in part, to track levels of Ackerman, R. A., Witt, E. A., Donnellan, M. B., social status and possibly as a prelude to regulat- Trzesniewski, K. H., Robins, R. W., & Kashy, D. A. ing subsequent status-seeking behavior. (2011). What does the narcissistic personality inven- tory really measure? Assessment, 18,67–87. https://doi. org/10.1177/1073191110382845. Anderson, C., Hildreth, J. A. D., & Howland, L. (2015). Is Cross-References the desire for status a fundamental human motive? A review of the empirical literature. Psychological – ▶ Sociometer Theory Bulletin, 141, 574 601. https://doi.org/10.1037/ ▶ a0038781. Self-esteem as a Status-Tracking Mechanism Bale, C., & Archer, J. (2013). Self-perceived attractive- ▶ Dominance Theory (Cummins) ness, romantic desirability and self-esteem: A mating ▶ Self-Esteem Reflects Assessments of Valuation sociometer perspective. Evolutionary Psychology, 11, – ▶ Self-Esteem Tracks Mate Value 68 84. ▶ Barkow, J. H. (1980). Self-Esteem and culture. In D. R. Self-Evaluations Track Perceived Mate Value Omark, F. F. Strayer, & D. G. Freedman (Eds.), Dom- ▶ Self-Esteem Tracks Social Evaluation inance relations: An ethological view of human conflict ▶ Self-Esteem Guides Decisions about Who to and social interaction (pp. 319–332). New York: Gar- Challenge land SMTP Press. ▶ Baumeister, R. (2005). The cultural animal: Human Changes in Self-Esteem Motivate Behavioral nature, meaning, and social life. New York: Oxford Changes University Press. ▶ Self-Esteem Increase Motivates Similar Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. ’ Behavior New York: Scribner s. ▶ De Waal-Andrews, W., Gregg, A. P., & Lammers, Self-Concept J. (2015). When status is grabbed and when status is ▶ Self-Deception granted: Getting ahead in dominance and prestige hier- ▶ Self-Efficacy archies. British Journal of Social Psychology, 54, – ▶ Self-Assessment 445 464. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12093. ▶ DeWall, C., Deckman, T., Pond, R. S., & Bonser, I. (2011). Dominance versus Prestige Belongingness as a core personality trait: How social ▶ Status and Dominance Hierarchies exclusion influences social functioning and personality ▶ Dominance Hierarchies expression. Journal of Personality, 79, 979–1012. ▶ Dominance Hierarchy https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00695.x. ▶ Faunce, W. A. (1984). School achievement, social status, Dominance in Humans and self-esteem. Social Psychology Quarterly, 47, ▶ Male Dominance Hierarchies 3–14. https://doi.org/10.2307/3033883. ▶ Female Dominance Hierarchies Fiske, S. T. (2010). Interpersonal stratification: Status, ▶ Social Dominance Orientation power, and subordination. In S. T. Fiske, G. Lindzey, ▶ & D. T. Gilbert (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology Dominance and Status in Nonhumans (5th ed., pp. 941–982). Hoboken: Wiley. ▶ Primate Dominance Hierarchies Foster, J. D., & Campbell, W. K. (2007). Are there such ▶ Dominance Affords/Predicts Sexual Access things as ‘narcissists’ in social psychology? ▶ Social Dominance and Sexual Access A taxometric analysis of the Narcissistic Personality ▶ Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, Dominance and Territory 1321–1332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ▶ Indicators and Correlates of Status and paid.2007.04.003. Dominance Fournier, M. A. (2009). Adolescent hierarchy formation ▶ and the social competition theory of depression. Jour- Shifting Dominance – ▶ nal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 28, 1144 1172. Emergence of Dominance Hierarchy https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2009.28.9.1144. ▶ Function of Dominance 6 Self-Esteem and Social Status: Dominance Theory and Hierometer Theory?

Gregg, A. P., & Sedikides, C. (2018). Essential self- theories of self-regard. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. evaluation motives: Caring about who we are. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00334. In M. van Zomeren & J. Dovidio (Eds.), The handbook Mahadevan, N., Gregg, A. P., & Sedikides, C. (2018). Is of the human essence (pp. 59–70). Oxford, UK: Oxford self-regard a sociometer or a hierometer? Self-esteem University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093//oxfordhb/ tracks status and inclusion, narcissism tracks status. 9780190247577.013.4. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. https:// Huo, Y. J., Binning, K. R., & Molina, L. E. (2010). Testing doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000189. an integrative model of respect: Implications for social Pusey, A. E., & Packer, C. (1997). The ecology of relation- engagement and well-being. Personality and Social ships. In J. R. Krebs & N. B. Davies (Eds.), Behavioral Psychology Bulletin, 36, 200–212. https://doi.org/ ecology. An evolutionary approach (4th ed., 10.1177/0146167209356787. pp. 254–283). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Hurd, P. L. (2006). Resource holding potential, subjective Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self- resource value, and game theoretical models of aggres- image. Princeton: Princeton University Press. siveness signaling. Journal of Theoretical Biology, Sedikides, C., & Gregg, A. P. (2008). Self-enhancement: 241, 639–648. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. Food for thought. Perspectives on Psychological Sci- JTBI.2006.01.001. ence, 3, 102–116. Kaufmann, J. H. (1983). On the definitions and functions Shackelford, T. K., Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (2005). of dominance and territoriality. Biological Reviews, 58, Universal dimensions of human mate preferences. 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1086/413055. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 447–458. Kraus, M. W., & Park, J. W. (2014). The undervalued self: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.01.023. Social class and self-evaluation. Frontiers in Psychol- Smith, H. J., Tyler, T. R., Huo, Y. J., Ortiz, D. J., & Lind, ogy, 5, 1404. https://doi.org/10.3389/ E. A. (1998). The self-relevant implications of the fpsyg.2014.01404. group-value model: Group membership, self-worth, Leary, M. R., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, S. K., & Downs, D. L. and treatment quality. Journal of Experimental Social (1995). Self-esteem as an interpersonal monitor: The Psychology, 34, 470–493. https://doi.org/10.1006/ sociometer hypothesis. Journal of Personality and jesp.1998.1360. Social Psychology, 68, 518–530. Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2002). Self-esteem and Leary, M. R., Cottrell, C. A., & Phillips, M. (2001). socioeconomic status: A meta-analytic review. Person- Deconfounding the effects of dominance and social ality and Social Psychology Review, 6,59–71. https:// acceptance on self-esteem. Journal of Personality and doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0601_3. Social Psychology, 81, 898–909. Wojciszke, B., & Struzynska-Kujalowicz, A. (2007). Mahadevan, N., Gregg, A. P., Sedikides, C., & de Waal- Power influences self-esteem. Social Cognition, 25, Andrews, W. G. (2016). Winners, losers, insiders, and 472–494. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2007.25.4.472. outsiders: Comparing hierometer and sociometer