User:Ss1660/sandbox

Effects of social status on social interactions

Social status is an individual’s hierarchal position in society. It is determined by factors such as education, wealth, and social connections. Social status is either inherent, based on factors like gender or race. Or it is achieved, by factors such as career or wealth success (Fershtman et al, 1996). It is essential to understand the various intersects of social status due to its effects on interpersonal relationships, group dynamics and economic success. Theoretical understanding gives foundation to the effects social interactions on social status. This research will also examine other factors examining status-based behaviour and effects such as social perceptions and status-based judgement, communication patterns, group dynamics, psychological consequences of status difference, applications, and future directions of the topic.

Theoretical background

Various social-psychological theories aid our comprehension of social status' psychological aetiology, and how it effects our social interactions.

Social Identity Theory

Henri Tajfel and John Turner's Social Identity theory proposes that individuals derive their self-concept from their membership in social groups (Stets & Burke, 2000). An individual’s position in the social hierarchy dictates their self-concept. Those with high social status usually have a positive self-concept, for example, someone who is successful professionally and has strong social connections will be positively reinforced for being competent and valued, leading to a positive self-concept. Whereas those with a lower status usually have a more negative self-concept. Positive or negative self-concept significantly influences social interactions with ingroups or outgroups. Individuals with a positive self-concept usually engage in more constructive and inclusive behaviours within their ingroups and outgroups. Whereas individuals with a negative self-concept typically engage in hostile and exclusive behaviour towards their outgroups (Hogg et al, 2017).

Social comparison theory

Social comparison theory is “the idea that there is a drive within individuals to look to outside images to evaluate their own opinions and abilities” (Festinger, 1957). These images can be comparisons to other people. Leon Festinger presented upward and downward comparisons. Upward comparisons would be an individual comparing themselves to someone of higher status leading to emotions like inferiority and envy. For example, an entrepreneurial student compares themself to Elon Musk, which could invoke a drive to work harder but it could also lead to feelings of inferiority/envy. Downward comparison involves evaluating oneself against someone of lower-status to improve their perceived superiority and self-esteem. Recent research portrays how upward and downward comparisons influence interactions on social media (Park et al, 2021).

Self-Categorisation Theory

John Turner’s Self-Categorisation Theory reinforces that social status influences social interactions proposing that individuals categorise themselves based on status. Self-categorisation theory explains how individuals derive identity from group memberships. By establishing themselves in an ingroup (people of the same occupation, gender, race or status) and perceiving others as residing in their ingroup or outgroup (Sindic & Condor, 2014). For example, someone in finance might establish an ingroup of only individuals that work in finance, and other individuals create the outgroup. Those in higher-status groups usually prioritise interaction and communication with their high-status ingroup. Whereas those of lower status either prioritise interaction with only others of lower status, defer to the influence of those of higher-status due to perceived competence, or contest those of higher influence (Turner et al, 1994).

The influences of status on behaviour

Stereotyping

How status influences social interactions can be understood by investigating the effects of stereotyping, communication, and group dynamics.

Research shows that individuals develop stereotypes for everyone to create efficient frameworks for interpreting people and information (Spencer et al, 2016) and that individuals create stereotypes according to social status. These stereotypes mean we ascribe incorrect characteristics to individuals. People of a higher social status can often be stereotyped as moral, trustworthy, and competent, due to their status rather than their character (Ridgeway & Markus, 2022) due to the halo effect which proposes that one positive trait, status, leads to the ascription of multiple positive attributes, such as competency or morality (Nicolau et al, 2020). For example, a prime minister is ascribed morality and integrity due to their position rather than their behaviour. Stereotyping and the halo effect result in altered interactions with individuals based on perceived status.

Implicit bias also alters our interactions with individuals regarding their social status. Implicit biases are unconscious attitudes that shape perceptions (Brownstein & Zalta, 2019). Higher status individuals are usually unconsciously favoured accredited with competency and morality. Implicit biases lead to favouritism and altered interpersonal relationships (Commins & Lockwood, 1979). This is demonstrated by a recent study which found that individuals who attended prestigious schools were favoured and more likely to be hired than equally qualified individuals from less privileged schools (Boudreau, 2020).

Communication behaviour

Communication and non-verbal behaviour differ in individuals of different statuses. Research has demonstrated that high-status and low-status individuals communicate differently, reflecting social standing and confidence. Individuals of higher status are usually associated with assertive and direct behaviour and speech (Ridgeway & Markus, 2022). Conversely, lower status individuals generally adopt a more submissive and agreeable position. Research by Brescoll et al. (2008) emphasised that individuals perceived as high status exhibited more authoritative and assertive language and behaviour in group settings. This behaviour influences an individual’s perceived authority in a situation. Alternately, individuals exhibiting submissive behaviour, usually associated with lower status, were perceived as less influential in group scenarios.

Furthermore, nonverbal behaviours such as eye contact and body language relate to status-based behaviour. Dominant non-verbal behaviours include intense eye contact, good posture, and regular hand gestures (Carney, 2020). These behaviours are associated with confidence and security that individuals of higher status typically assume (Carney, 2020). These non-verbal behaviours covertly communicate control and authority, which research influences individuals' perceptions and encourages those around them to non-verbally communicate submission, through behaviours such as poor eye contact and bad posture (Dragomir et al, 2021).

Group dynamics

Status alters group dynamics. It influences leadership dynamics, conformity and hierarchical behaviour. Status determines leadership roles, and these leadership roles appoint decision-making power to individuals. Status characteristics theory proposes the ideology that when individuals are in a work setting, they have visible status-related traits such as high socioeconomic-status and academic success (Bucciol et al, 2015). These high-status-related traits influence how other individuals perceive their competence and skills. So, because of this, they are more likely to emerge as leaders, have their proposals taken more seriously and be given more opportunities relative to those with an associated low status, who are more likely to be ignored and overlooked (Lee & Ofshe, 1981). Therefore, these high-status individuals will guide group decisions and discussions, influencing the overall group dynamics.

E (authority figure), T (teacher), L (learner)

Status impacts conformity and obedience in group dynamics. Classic studies such as Stanley Milgram’s obedience studies demonstrate this. Milgram conducted a study where an authority figure (scientist in a lab coat) instructed a participant (teacher) to administer electric shocks to a “learner” (confederate) if they got a question wrong. With each false answer, participants were encouraged to increase the voltage of the electric shocks (Milgram, 1963). Variations of the experiment were conducted, and obedience rates dropped when associated status-related cues, such as a lab coat, were absent. The experiment's setting at Yale, a prestigious institution, reinforced the authority figure's status. When the experiment was not at Yale and the authority figure did not wear a lab coat, the obedience rates of administering the electric shocks dropped (Haslam et al, 2014). Confirming that perceived status in group dynamics creates conformity and obedience.

Hierarchies derive from observable traits and their perceived connection with status. Hierarchy is a ranking system based on the level of importance. If an individual possesses qualities such as wealth or high academic success, they attain leadership roles. High-status individuals typically drive group norms and ideas, reinforcing the hierarchy within a group. Hierarchies continue to sustain themselves affecting the continuation of status-related segregation (Dubois & Ordabayeva, 2015).

Psychological consequences

Status differences can result in psychological issues. Individuals with low status can experience anxiety, depression, and stress due to the social exclusion associated with having a low status (Yu & Williams, 1999). A peer review of over two hundred studies highlighted the correlation between low income and status inequality with various life outcomes such as lower life expectancy, mental illness, and obesity (Siegrist & Marmot, 2004).

There are associated behavioural changes with levels of power. Those with a low status have associated powerlessness. Prolonged powerlessness results in helplessness which creates a cycle of low achievement and poor self-esteem (Pickett & Wilkinson, 2009). Conversely, those with a high-status position exhibit overconfidence and assertiveness due to reduced social repercussions (Anderson & Berdahl, 2002). Research has provided evidence highlighting maintained high status and reduced empathy. Emphasising that power reduces attentiveness to alternative social perspectives and emotions (Keltner et al, 2003).

Status anxiety refers to an individual’s fear about their relative position in the social hierarchy (Paskov et al, 2013). Status anxiety correlates with aggressive, over-competitive and indifferent behaviour, when an individual is fearful about losing their social standing (Busquet, 2011).

Applications in practical contexts

teacher in authoritative position

Status differences have a significant influence on social dynamics and interactions across several social contexts. Status affects interactions in education, healthcare, and the workplace. In the education system, teachers hold a higher status, enforcing students to submit to their authority. This status difference reinforces a power-hold where students feel discouraged from participating due to feelings of inferiority (Brookfield, 2015).

Status differences in the workplace correlate with innovation, collaboration, and workplace satisfaction. High-status leaders who dominate decision-making create a hierarchal chain that discourages lower-status employees from inputting ideas. This reduces innovation, and collaboration between employees and employers and leads to feelings of inferiority which creates workplace dissatisfaction (Chou & Chang, 2017). Due to the influences of high-status leaders, this unequal hierarchy promotes resentment, insecurity, and lower productivity in the workplace (Totty & Bendersky, 2018).

Status differences between healthcare providers and patients affect communication and trust. Doctors generally attain high perceived status, which typically results in patients adhering to medical advice without question. This power dynamic can give rise to complications if the doctor is mistaken, as patients may be reluctant to voice concerns due to the perceived imbalance of power and feelings of inferiority (Roter et al, 2006).

Future direction

online communication

The evolving nature of social status and social interactions in the developing world generates the need for continued exploration in theoretical, applied, and digital contexts. Future research could focus on digital environments, and how platforms such as social media and online messaging redefine status acquiral, perception and ensuing interactions. The enquiry of globalisation on the perception of status and social interactions across all ethnic backgrounds is an essential future line of research. Scrutinising other social identities, such as race and gender concerning status would provide a more nuanced account of how hierarchies and social dynamics operate. Practical applications focusing on egalitarian models could be implemented in healthcare, education, and the workplace, therefore working towards mitigating status-related negative issues. Integrating perspectives from economic and neuroscientific backgrounds could also enhance our comprehension of how status influences behaviour, cognition, and societal dynamics. This article creates a theoretical and behavioural foundation of the impacts of status on social interactions whilst emphasising the potential directions for future research and application in a developing societal landscape.

Summary

Social status derives from achieved attributes (e.g. occupation) or inherent traits (e.g. gender), and has a significant influence on behaviour, group dynamics and communication. Foundational theories such as self-categorisation theory and social identity theory provide a theoretical basis to understand the formation and effects of social status. The article discusses the negative consequences of status disparities such as anxiety and explores the implications of these consequences in settings such as healthcare and education. It is important that future research is conducted in digital, cross-cultural contexts to therefore ultimately create egalitarian solutions to mitigate status-based issues.

REFERENCES

1.   Anderson, C., & Berdahl, J. L. (2002). The experience of power: examining the effects of power on approach and inhibition tendencies. Journal of personality and social psychology, 83(6), 1362.
2.     Boudreau, E. (2020, August 11). Measuring Implicit Bias in Schools | Harvard Graduate School of Education. Www.gse.harvard.edu. https://www.gse.harvard.edu/ideas/usable-knowledge/20/08/measuring-implicit-bias-schools
3.   Brescoll, V., & Uhlmann, E. (2008). Can an Angry Woman Get Ahead? Status Conferral, Gender, and Expression of Emotion in the Workplace. https://www.socialjudgments.com/docs/Brescoll%20and%20Uhlmann%202008.pdf
4.  Brookfield, S. D. (2015). The skillful teacher: On technique, trust, and responsiveness in the classroom. John Wiley & Sons.
5.  Brownstein, M., & Zalta, E. (2019). Implicit bias.
6.      Bucciol, A., Cavasso, B., & Zarri, L. (2015). Social status and personality traits. Journal of Economic Psychology, 51, 245-260.
7.      Busquet, J. (2011). The fear of loss of status. Transfer: journal of contemporary culture, 6, 68-77.
8.      Carney, D. R. (2020). The nonverbal expression of power, status, and dominance. Current opinion in psychology, 33, 256-264.
9.     Chou, S. Y., & Chang, T. (2017). Employee Silence and Silence Antecedents: A Theoretical Classification. International Journal of Business Communication, 57(3), 232948841770330. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488417703300
10.     Dragomir, G.-M., Fărcașiu, M. A., & Șimon, S. (2021). Students’ Perceptions of Verbal and Non-Verbal Communication Behaviors during and after the COVID-19 Pandemic. Applied Sciences, 11(18), 8282. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11188282
11.    Dubois, D., & Ordabayeva, N. (2015). 13 Social Hierarchy, Social Status, and Status Consumption.
12.   Fershtman, C., Murphy, K. M., & Weiss, Y. (1996). Social status, education, and growth. Journal of Political Economy, 104(1), 108-132.
13.    Festinger, L. (1957). Social comparison theory. Selective Exposure Theory, 16(401), 3.
14.   Haslam, N., Loughnan, S., & Perry, G. (2014). Meta-Milgram: An empirical synthesis of the obedience experiments. PloS one, 9(4), e93927.
15.   Hogg, M. A., Abrams, D., & Brewer, M. B. (2017). Social identity: The role of self in group processes and intergroup relations. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20(5), 570-581.
16.    Lee, M. T., & Ofshe, R. (1981). The impact of behavioral style and status characteristics on social influence: A test of two competing theories. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73-82.
17.     Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. The Journal of abnormal and social psychology, 67(4), 371.
18.       Nicolau, J. L., Mellinas, J. P., & Martín-Fuentes, E. (2020). The halo effect: A longitudinal approach. Annals of Tourism Research, 83, 102938.
19.     Park, J., Kim, B. and Park, S. (2021). Understanding the Behavioral Consequences of Upward Social Comparison on Social Networking Sites: The Mediating Role of Emotions. Sustainability, 13(11), p.5781. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/su13115781.
20.     Paskov, M., Gërxhani, K., & van de Werfhorst, H. G. (2013). Income inequality and status anxiety. Growing Inequality Impacts, 90(90), 1-46.
21.      Pickett, K. E., & Wilkinson, R. G. (2009). Greater equality and better health. Bmj, 339.
22.       Ridgeway, C. L., & Markus, H. R. (2022). The Significance of Status: What It Is and How It Shapes Inequality. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 8(6), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.7758/RSF.2022.8.6.01
23.      Roter, D. L., Frankel, R. M., Hall, J. A., & Sluyter, D. (2006). The expression of emotion through nonverbal behavior in medical visits: mechanisms and outcomes. Journal of general internal medicine, 21, 28-34.
24.    Siegrist, J., & Marmot, M. (2004). Health inequalities and the psychosocial environment—two scientific challenges. Social science & medicine, 58(8), 1463-1473.
25.    Sindic, D., & Condor, S. (2014). Social identity theory and self-categorisation theory. In The Palgrave handbook of global political psychology (pp. 39-54). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK
26.      Spencer, S. J., Logel, C., & Davies, P. G. (2016). Stereotype threat. Annual review of psychology, 67(1), 415-437.
27.    Stets, J. E., & Burke, P. J. (2000). Identity theory and social identity theory. Social psychology quarterly, 224-237.
28.     Totty, M & Bendersky, C. (2018). Status among team members: Conflict and productivity - UCLA Anderson review. UCLA Anderson Review. https://anderson-review.ucla.edu/whos-in-charge/
29.      Turner, J. C., Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & McGarty, C. (1994). Self and collective: Cognition and social context. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 20(5), 454-463.