THE LOCAL LADDER EFFECT:
SOCIAL STATUS AND
SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING
Cameron Anderson
Michael E. Kraus
Adam D. Galinsky
Dacher Keltner
INCOME WEAKLY INFLUENCES
SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING
Within countries, income and
subjective well-being (SWB)
correlate weakly, r = .15
(e.g., Alston , Lowe, & Wrigley, 1974;
Andrews & Withey, 1976; Bor tner &
Hultsch, 1970; Clark & Oswald,
1994; Clemente & Sauer, 1976;
Diener, Haring, Stock , & Okun, 1984;
Diener, Sandvik , Seidlitz & Diener,
1993; Freudiger, 1980; Horowitz , &
Emmons, 1985; Inglehar t, 1990;
Kimmel, Price, & Walker, 1978;
Mancini & Or thner, 1980; Myer s &
Diener 1985; Nicker son et al., 2003;
Riddick , 1980; Veenhoven , 1994)
When national income
increases over time, SWB
does not (Easterlin Paradox)
STATUS: AN EMPT Y PURSUIT?
 Valuing money => depression and anxiety 1
 Power-oriented individuals lower in well -being 2
 Implication: Achieving status does little for SWB
1
2
Kasser & Ryan, 1993; Nickerson et al., 2003
Emmons, 1991; Sheldon et al., 2007
SOCIOMETRIC STATUS
 Sociometric status: Respect and admiration in others’ eyes 1
 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 -toface groups 2
 Sociometric status (SMS) is empirically distinct from
socioeconomic status (SES; income, education)
 People affiliate with others of similar SES 3
 Differences in SMS emerge among individuals with same SES 4
1
2
3
4
Berger, Cohen, & Zelditch, 1972; Blau, 1964
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., 2008
McPherson & Smith-Lovin, 1987
Blau, 1964; Roethlesberger & Dickson, 1939; Whyte, 1943
THE LOCAL LADDER EFFECT
 Relative, immediate comparisons matter more than absolute,
distant comparisons 1
 “Beggars do not envy millionaires, though of course they will envy
other beggars who are more successful” – Bertrand Russell, 1930
 Sociometric status leads to power 2 , and the sense of power
increases happiness 3
 Sociometric status leads to social acceptance 4 , which also
increases happiness 5
Festinger, 1954
Berger, Cohen, & Zelditch, 1972
3 Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003
4 Thibault & Kelley, 1959
5 Baumeister & Leary, 1995
1
2
HYPOTHESES
 Local Ladder Effect: Sociometric status will shape
SWB
 The effect of sociometric status on SWB will be
stronger than that of SES
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
STUDY 1: METHODS
 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)
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
.42
-2.25
-.25
2.08
Status:
STUDY 1: METHODS
 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)
SWB
RESULTS
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
 Sociometric status:
β=.35**, B=.33, SE=.10
 Socioeconomic status:
β=.02, B=.01, SE=.06
Low
High
Socioeconomic Status
Sociometric Status
Sociometric status predicted SWB
more strongly than SES (Cohen et al.,
2003), F(1,78)=14.15, p<.001
GENDER DIFFERENCES?
 Several theorists have argued that men and women dif fer 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**
STUDY 1 FINDINGS
 Sociometric status predicted SWB (A Local Ladder Ef fect)
 The relationship between sociometric status and SWB was
stronger than that between SES and SWB
 The ef fect of sociometric status held up for men and women
STUDY 2
 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: METHODS
 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 (Lear y et al., 1995)
 accepted, included, liked, welcomed
 M = 5.80, SD = .79, α = .96
RESULTS
0.6
 Sociometric status:
β=.50**, B=.43, SE=.04
SWB
0.4
0.2
0
 Socioeconomic status:
β=.08, B=.07, SE=.05
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
Low
High
Socioeconomic Status
Sociometric Status
Sociometric status predicted SWB
more strongly than SES (Cohen et al.,
2003), F(1,313)=14.13, p<.001.
SMS: MEDIATION
Sense of
Power
.55** (.33**)
.57**
Sociometric
Status
.65**
Sobel z = 4.90, p < .01
.50** (.10)
Social
Acceptance
Subjective
Well-Being
.59** (.39**)
Sobel z = 5.89, p < .01
SES: NO EFFECTS ON SENSE OF POWER,
SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE
Sense of
Power
.55** (.56**)
-.09
Socioeconomic
Status
-.06
.10+ (.14)
Social
Acceptance
Subjective
Well-Being
.59** (.60**)
STUDY 2 FINDINGS
 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 3: CAUSATION
 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)
SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS MANIPULATION
“Think of the ladder above as representing where people
stand in the United States . Now please compare your self
to the people at the ver y bottom (top) rung of the ladder.
At the bottom (top) of the ladder are the people with the
least (most) money, education, and wor st (best) jobs.
In par ticular, 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 BET WEEN
YOU might impact what you would talk about, how the
interaction is likely to go, and what you and the other
per son 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
SOCIOMETRIC STATUS MANIPULATION
“Think of the ladder above as representing where people
stand in the impor tant groups to which they belong. For
example, these can include their groups of friends, family,
work group, etc. Now please compare your self to the people
at the ver y bottom (top) rung of the ladder. These are people
who have NO (A GREAT DEAL OF ) RESPECT and ADMIRATION
in their impor tant social groups.
In par ticular, we'd like you to COMPARE YOURSELF TO THESE
PEOPLE in terms of your own respect and admiration in your
impor tant groups. Now imagine your self in a getting
acquainted interaction with one of these people. Think about
how the SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BET WEEN YOU
might impact what you would talk about, how the interaction
is likely to go, and what you and the other per son might say
to each other. Please write a brief description about how you
think this interaction would go.”
Blue = high sociometric condition
Red = low sociometri c condition
STUDY 3: METHODS
 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
MANIPULATION CHECK:
“WHERE WOULD YOU PLACE YOURSELF
ON THIS LADDER?”
Sociometric status
Socioeconomic status
10
10
9
9
8
8
7
6
5
6.45
7
6
5.12
6
5.27
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
t (115) = 3.65, p < .01
t (109) = 2.06, p < .05
No interaction: F(1,224) = 1.38, p = .24
SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING
Sociometric status
Socioeconomic status
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.04
-0.03
-0.2
-0.3
t (115) = 3.05, p < .01
-0.4
t (109) = .06, n.s.
Interaction: F(1,224) = 4.73, p < .05
STUDY 3 FINDINGS
 Sociometric status more strongly af fected SWB than SES
 Experimental methods helped establish causality
 The ef fect again held up across both men and women
(Interaction F[1 ,111] = 2.98 n.s.)
STUDY 4
 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: LONGITUDINAL CHANGES IN SMS
Time 1: April 2010
Time 2: February 2011
 156 2 nd -year MBA
students
 116 (74% return rate),
71% men, 29% women
 Sociometric status in
MBA cohort (α = .94)
 Sociometric status in
workplace (α = .94)
 Income (M = 4.89, SD =
2.82), $35,001-$50,000
 Income (M = 6.89, SD =
1.46), $75,001-$100,000
 SWB: SWLS, PANAS (all
α’s > .85)
 SWB: SWLS, PANAS (all
α’s > .86)
RESULTS
Time 1: April 2010
Time 2: February 2011
Sociometric Status
in MBA cohort
Sociometric Status
in workplace
.46**
Subjective Well-Being
.00
.44**
.63** (.40**)
Subjective Well-Being
Difference in sociometric status predicted difference in SWB (β=.22, p<.05).
RESULTS
Time 1: April 2010
Time 2: February 2011
SES
SES
-.12
Subjective Well-Being
-.19*
.68**
.01 (.11)
Subjective Well-Being
Changes in sociometric status more strongly affected SWB, F(1,114)=20.17, p<.01.
STUDY 4 FINDINGS
 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
SUMMARY
 Local Ladder Ef fect: 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)
 Ef fect of sociometric status consistently stronger than SES
 Two underlying mechanisms:
 Sense of power
 Social acceptance
IMPLICATIONS
 Status does matter to subjective well -being
 But not all forms of status matter equally
 Possessing higher social standing might have dif ferent
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 )
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
 Why does SMS af fect 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” ?