What’s in a Name? Status, Power, and Other Forms of Social Hierarchy

Abstract

This is an exciting time to be a researcher with a "social status" focus. Indeed, this book serves as a testament to the energy that currently surrounds the topic of social status (hereafter referred to simply as "status"). There is an enormous amount of activity on the topic, with much of the most recent and innovative work coming from psychology researchers. These recent developments are rather intriguing in light of the fact that status is, by no means, a new topic. Discussions about status have quite a long history within the social sciences (particularly in anthropology and sociology), consistent with the reality that status hierarchies emerge in all social settings and that status issues permeate social life (e.g., Anderson and Kilduff 2009;Blader and Chen 2012;Fiske 2010;Podolny 2005). Given these realities, why have psychology researchers not historically paid more attention to status, and, moreover, why have related research areas such as organizational behavior and management not paid more attention to this truly fundamental issue?One possible factor might be cultural-some norms in the US, as well as in most Western countries, tend to proscribe the notion that individuals should (or even can) be rank-ordered on perceived levels of esteem and worthiness. Instead, norms maintain that everyone is unique and worthy-even if only in their own "special" way (Brewer and Chen 2007). This perspective is reflected in emerging work that shows the stigma attached to status striving (Kim and Pettit 2013). Another factor contributing to the lack of attention to status may be the interest in other hierarchical dimensions-power, in particular. That is, research has tended to focus on alternate ways of thinking about rank and hierarchy. Of course, it may well be that the flurry of work on the psychology of power has sparked recent interest in related concepts, and status research may be a beneficiary of that trend.A third likely contributing factor-one that serves as a critical basis for this chapter-is that there has historically been relatively weak conceptual clarity around

The interpersonal nature of power and status

“…Finally, it is important to note that the two topics covered in this review, interpersonal consequences and inferences, have been differentially studied in regards to power versus status. Specifically, power research has focused more on its consequences, whereas status research has focused more on its antecedents [2]. Given that a proper understanding of power and status requires knowledge about both, we urge researchers to fill these gaps.…”

“…In contrast, social status is conferred by others. It is the extent to which an individual is held in high esteem and respected by others [1][2].…”

Power in everyday life

“…The theory also posits that feelings of responsibility for others may shrink experienced social distance, and thus alter power's effects. We also measured how much participants felt respected by others to examine the association between power and status, a related but distinct concept (37).…”

Perception of managers’ influence depending on status, power, and company performance

“…Status is similar to (and, unfortunately often confounded with) other social hierarchy dimensions, such as power (i.e., control of valued resources). Both status and power have consequences in terms of influence, but they have different effects on cognition and behavior (Blader & Chen, ). One of these effects concerns the way we perceive and form impressions about other individuals (Fragale, Overbeck & Neale, ).…”

“…Two potential sources of influence are status and power (Blader & Chen, ). Indeed, according to Blader and Chen (, p. 75), French and Raven's () taxonomy of the bases of power, one of the earliest efforts to define the relevance of distinguishing between these two social hierarchical dimensions, “is best described as analyzing the bases of potential for influence, not power per se.”…”