Cameron AndersonMichael E. KrausAdam D. GalinskyDacher Keltner

THE LOCAL LADDER EFFECT: SOCIAL STATUS AND SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING

Within countries, income and subjective well-being (SWB) correlate weakly, r = .15(e.g., Alston, Lowe, & Wrigley, 1974; Andrews & Withey, 1976; Bortner & Hultsch, 1970; Clark & Oswald, 1994; Clemente & Sauer, 1976; Diener, Haring, Stock, & Okun, 1984; Diener, Sandvik, Seidlitz & Diener, 1993; Freudiger, 1980; Horowitz, & Emmons, 1985; Inglehart, 1990; Kimmel, Price, & Walker, 1978; Mancini & Orthner, 1980; Myers & Diener 1985; Nickerson et al., 2003; Riddick, 1980; Veenhoven, 1994)

When national income increases over time, SWB does not (Easterlin Paradox)

INCOME WEAKLY INFLUENCESSUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING

Valuing money => depression and anxiety1 Power-oriented individuals lower in well-being2

Implication: Achieving status does little for SWB

STATUS: AN EMPTY PURSUIT?

1 Kasser & Ryan, 1993; Nickerson et al., 20032 Emmons, 1991; Sheldon et al., 2007

Sociometric status: Respect and admiration in others’ eyes1

It is “local,” or defined in one’s face-to-face groups It is peer-determined, involving others’ respect and admiration

Sociometric status hierarchies emerge in all kinds of face-to-face groups2

Sociometric status (SMS) is empirically distinct from socioeconomic status (SES; income, education) People affiliate with others of similar SES3 Differences in SMS emerge among individuals with same SES4

SOCIOMETRIC STATUS

1 Berger, Cohen, & Zelditch, 1972; Blau, 19642 Bernstein, 1981; Davis & Moore, 1945; Eibl-Eibesfelt, 1989; Hogan, 1983; Leavitt, 2005; Mazur,

1973; Schjelderup-Ebbe, 1935; Tannenbaum et al., 1974; Van Vugt et al., 20083 McPherson & Smith-Lovin, 19874 Blau, 1964; Roethlesberger & Dickson, 1939; Whyte, 1943

Relative, immediate comparisons matter more than absolute, distant comparisons1

“Beggars do not envy millionaires, though of course they will envy other beggars who are more successful” – Bertrand Russell, 1930

Sociometric status leads to power2, and the sense of power increases happiness3

Sociometric status leads to social acceptance4, which also increases happiness5

THE LOCAL LADDER EFFECT

1 Festinger, 19542 Berger, Cohen, & Zelditch, 19723 Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 20034 Thibault & Kelley, 19595 Baumeister & Leary, 1995

Local Ladder Effect: Sociometric status will shape

SWB

The effect of sociometric status on SWB will be stronger than that of SES

HYPOTHESES

OVERVIEW OF STUDIES

Study 1: College student groups, clubs,

associations

Study 2: National sample; mediation

Study 3: Experimental manipulation

Study 4: Longitudinal assessment of changes in

status over time

80 members of 12 student groups (fraternities, sororities, committees, clubs, ROTC, etc.) 53% men, 47% women

Sociometric status Peer-ratings of respect, admiration, looked up to (α = .71) Self-ratings of status along same dimensions (r = .54, α = .93) Number of leadership positions (M = 1.71, SD = 1.56)

STUDY 1: METHODS

ROUND-ROBIN DESIGN (KENNY & LA VOIE, 1984)

Targets

Raters Amy Bob Candace Dave

Amy 7 2 5 7

Bob 4 3 4 6

Candace 5 3 5 7

Dave 6 2 4 6

Status: .42 -2.25 -.25 2.08

80 members of 12 student groups (fraternities, sororities, school committees, student clubs, ROTC) 53% men, 47% women

Sociometric status Peer-ratings of respect, admiration, looked up to (α = .71) Self-ratings of status along same dimensions (r = .54, α = .93) Number of leadership positions (M = 1.71, SD = 1.56)

Total household income (Adler et al., 2000) (a) under $15K, (b) $15–$25K, (c) $25–$35K, (d) $35–$50K, (e)

$50–$75K, (f) $75–$100K, (g) $100-$150K, and (h) over $150K M = 6.17, SD = 1.44 Average household income between $75,000 and $100,000

STUDY 1: METHODS

Subjective well-being: 3 components (Diener et al., 1999)

Satisfaction with life scale (SWLS; Diener et al., 1985) M = 5.38, SD = .94, α = .77

Positive and Negative Affect (PANAS; Watson et al., 1988) Positive affect: M = 3.84, SD = .72, α = .89 Negative affect: M = 1.80, SD = .53, α = .83

Control for gender, ethnicity (White/non-White)

STUDY 1: METHODS

Sociometric status: β=.35**, B=.33,

SE=.10

Socioeconomic status: β=.02, B=.01, SE=.06

RESULTS

Sociometric status predicted SWB more strongly than SES

(Cohen et al., 2003), F(1,78)=14.15, p<.001

Several theorists have argued that men and women differ in the way they think about and are motivated by status

(Buss, 1999; Hoyenga, 1993; Sidanius, Pratto, & Bobo, 1994) Men care about status more than women (Buss, 1999, p. 43)

Does sociometric status matter more for men’s SWB than for women’s?

No: For men, r = .40**, and for women, r = .38**

GENDER DIFFERENCES?

Sociometric status predicted SWB (A Local Ladder Effect)

The relationship between sociometric status and SWB was stronger than that between SES and SWB

The effect of sociometric status held up for men and women

STUDY 1 FINDINGS

Mediation: Why does sociometric status matter? Sense of power, social acceptance

Focused on groups that participants chose as most important to them Better gauge of the importance of sociometric status

More representative sample

Is personality a third variable? Control for extraversion

Measure other major component of SES: education

STUDY 2

315 participants (36% men, 64% women) from national sample Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk: Reliable and more diverse than

college samples (Buhrmeister, Kwang, & Gosling, 2010) Average age = 32.8, SD = 11.0

Sociometric status “List your three most important groups (e.g., friends, family, athletic

team, work group),” rate status in each (same items as in Study 1) M = 5.16, SD = .93, α = .94

Socioeconomic status Household income: M = 4.12 ($35,001 - $50,000), SD = 1.94 Education: M = 2.66 (between high school and some college), SD

= .75

STUDY 2: METHODS

Subjective well-being Satisfaction with life scale: M = 4.29, SD = 1.47, α = .92 Positive affect: M = 3.38, SD = .78, α = .90 Negative affect: M = 2.08, SD = .81, α = .91

Control for gender, ethnicity (White/non-White)

Extraversion (BFI; John & Srivastava, 1999) M = 3.01, SD = .82, α = .96

Sense of power in each group (Anderson et al., in press) e.g., “If I want to, I get to make the decisions” M = 4.82, SD = .75, α = .90

Social acceptance in each group (Leary et al., 1995) accepted, included, liked, welcomed M = 5.80, SD = .79, α = .96

STUDY 2: METHODS

Sociometric status: β=.50**, B=.43,

SE=.04

Socioeconomic status: β=.08, B=.07, SE=.05

RESULTS

Sociometric status predicted SWB more strongly than SES

(Cohen et al., 2003), F(1,313)=14.13, p<.001.

SMS: MEDIATION

.50** (.10)

.55** (.33**).57**

.59** (.39**).65**

Sense of Power

Sociometric Status

Social Acceptance

Subjective Well-Being

Sobel z = 4.90, p < .01

Sobel z = 5.89, p < .01

SES: NO EFFECTS ON SENSE OF POWER, SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE

.10+ (.14)

.55** (.56**)-.09

.59** (.60**)-.06

Sense of Power

Socioeconomic Status

Social Acceptance

Subjective Well-Being

Sociometric status predicted SWB (more strongly than SES)

Sense of power, social acceptance mediated the link between sociometric status and SWB

More representative sample with wider range in SES

The results held up even after controlling for extraversion

The results held up for men (r=.54) and women (r=.48)

STUDY 2 FINDINGS

228 participants (38% men, 62% women) via MTurk

2X2 between-subjects design: Status type (socioeconomic vs. sociometric) Status level (low vs. high)

Manipulated subjective sense of SES and SMS Imagine-an-interaction procedure (Kraus et al., 2010) e.g., Low SES: “Imagine interacting with someone high in SES” Builds from dominance complementarity principle (Horowitz et al.,

2006; Tiedens, Unzueta, & Young, 2007)

STUDY 3: CAUSATION

“Think of the ladder above as representing where people stand in the United States. Now please compare yourself to the people at the very bottom (top) rung of the ladder. At the bottom (top) of the ladder are the people with the least (most) money, education, and worst (best) jobs.

In particular, we'd like you to COMPARE YOURSELF TO THESE PEOPLE. Now imagine yourself in a getting acquainted interaction with one of these people. Think about how the SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN YOU might impact what you would talk about, how the interaction is likely to go, and what you and the other person might say to each other. Please write a brief description about how you think this interaction would go.”

Blue = high socioeconomic condition Red = low socioeconomic condition

SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS MANIPULATION

“Think of the ladder above as representing where people stand in the important groups to which they belong. For example, these can include their groups of friends, family, work group, etc. Now please compare yourself to the people at the very bottom (top) rung of the ladder. These are people who have NO (A GREAT DEAL OF) RESPECT and ADMIRATION in their important social groups.

In particular, we'd like you to COMPARE YOURSELF TO THESE PEOPLE in terms of your own respect and admiration in your important groups. Now imagine yourself in a getting acquainted interaction with one of these people. Think about how the SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN YOU might impact what you would talk about, how the interaction is likely to go, and what you and the other person might say to each other. Please write a brief description about how you think this interaction would go.”

Blue = high sociometric condition Red = low sociometric condition

SOCIOMETRIC STATUS MANIPULATION

Subjective well-being

Satisfaction with life scale: M = 4.28, SD = 1.45, α = .91

Positive affect: M = 2.92, SD = .83, α = .91

Negative affect: M = 1.56, SD = .73, α = .91

STUDY 3: METHODS

Sociometric status Socioeconomic status

MANIPULATION CHECK:“WHERE WOULD YOU PLACE YOURSELF

ON THIS LADDER?”

t (115) = 3.65, p < .01

t (109) = 2.06, p < .05

No interaction: F(1,224) = 1.38, p = .24

Sociometric status Socioeconomic status

SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING

t (109) = .06, n.s. t (115) = 3.05, p < .01

Interaction: F(1,224) = 4.73, p < .05

Sociometric status more strongly affected SWB than SES

Experimental methods helped establish causality

The effect again held up across both men and women (Interaction F[1,111] = 2.98 n.s.)

STUDY 3 FINDINGS

When status rises or falls after a significant life transition, does SWB rise or fall accordingly?

In a longitudinal design MBA students were assessed: One month before they graduated Nine months after graduation when they had entered the

workforce

Graduating involves moving from one sociometric status hierarchy to another. Such a move could involve an increase or decrease in sociometric status.

STUDY 4

Time 1: April 2010156 2nd-year MBA

students

Sociometric status in MBA cohort (α = .94)

Income (M = 4.89, SD = 2.82), $35,001-$50,000

SWB: SWLS, PANAS (all α’s > .85)

Time 2: February 2011116 (74% return rate),

71% men, 29% women

Sociometric status in workplace (α = .94)

Income (M = 6.89, SD = 1.46), $75,001-$100,000

SWB: SWLS, PANAS (all α’s > .86)

STUDY 4: LONGITUDINAL CHANGES IN SMS

RESULTS

Time 1: April 2010 Time 2: February 2011

Sociometric Status in MBA cohort

Sociometric Statusin workplace

Subjective Well-Being

Subjective Well-Being

Subjective Well-Being

Subjective Well-Being

.46** .63** .00

.44**

(.40**)

Difference in sociometric status predicted difference in SWB (β=.22, p<.05).

RESULTS

Time 1: April 2010 Time 2: February 2011

SES SES

Subjective Well-Being

Subjective Well-Being

Subjective Well-Being

Subjective Well-Being

-.12 .01 -.19*

.68**

(.11)

Changes in sociometric status more strongly affected SWB, F(1,114)=20.17, p<.01.

Changes in sociometric status predicted changes in SWB As sociometric status rose or fell, so did SWB

Changes in sociometric status more strongly predicted changes in SWB than did changes in SES

STUDY 4 FINDINGS

Local Ladder Effect: Sociometric status predicted SWB (average β across correlational studies = .49) Effect emerged in correlational, longitudinal, experimental designs Consistent across men and women Held up after controlling for demographic variables, personality

(extraversion)

Effect of sociometric status consistently stronger than SES

Two underlying mechanisms: Sense of power Social acceptance

SUMMARY

Status does matter to subjective well-being But not all forms of status matter equally

Possessing higher social standing might have different psychological consequences that striving for higher standing (Nickerson et al., 2003)

Organizations that can raise average levels of sociometric status might promote job performance, satisfaction (Cohn, 1979; Near, Rice, & Hunt, 1978; Weaver, 1978)

IMPLICATIONS

Why does SMS affect happiness more than SES? Do people not adapt to high/low SMS, as they adapt to money? SES may not lead to happiness because striving for it involves

behaviors that detract from happiness. Striving for SMS involves behaviors that contribute to happiness (e.g., generosity).

Does the impact of SMS on happiness depend on its source?

What determines one’s “local ladder”?

FUTURE DIRECTIONS