Image: Rosemarie Gearhart
-
The Wisdom of Psychopaths
In this engrossing journey into the lives of psychopaths and their infamously crafty behaviors, the renowned psychologist Kevin Dutton reveals that there is a...
Read More »
Nobel Laureate economist, John Harsanyi, said that “apart from economic payoffs, social status seems to be the most important incentive and motivating force of social behavior.” The more noticeable status disparities are, the more concerned with status people become, and the differences between the haves and have-nots have been extremely pronounced during the economic recession of recent years. Barack Obama campaigned directly on the issue of the “dwindling middle class” during his 2008 presidential run and appointed vice-president Joe Biden to lead a middle class task force specifically to bolster this demographic. Despite some recent economic improvement, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont just two months ago cautioned that “the reality is that the middle class today in this country is in desperate shape and the gap between the very very wealthy and everyone else is going to grow wider.” Concerns about status likely will not be leaving the public consciousness any time soon.
Of course, status differences are not simply relevant to economic standing, but they appear to be on our minds at all times. As renowned neuroscientist, Michael Gazzaniga, has noted, “When you get up in the morning, you do not think about triangles and squares and these similes that psychologists have been using for the past 100 years. You think about status. You think about where you are in relation to your peers.” Between CEO and employee, quarterback and wide receiver, husband and wife, status looms large. Recent work by social scientists has tackled the topic, elucidating behavioral differences between low-status and high-status individuals, and the methods by which those at the bottom of the totem pole are most successful at climbing to the top.
Psychologist PJ Henry at DePaul University recently published an article demonstrating that low-status individuals have higher tendencies toward violent behavior, explaining these differences in terms of low-status compensation theory. Henry began this work by observing that murder rates were higher in regions with landscapes conducive to herding compared to regions that are conducive to farming, consistent with prior research showing an association between herding-based economies and violence. The traditional explanation for this pattern, popularized by psychologists Dov Cohen and Richard Nisbett, is that herding cultures have a propensity for maintaining a Culture of Honor. The story goes that because herders from Southern Britain originally settled in the Southern United States (and also established a herding economy on the new land), this left them in an economically precarious position. The possessions of these herdsmen—the most important of which was their livestock—was susceptible to theft, forcing individuals to develop a quick trigger in response to threats, economic or otherwise. In comparison, the farming economy of the North was far more secure, requiring a less aggressive and protective stance toward one’s personal resources.
Henry took on the traditional Culture of Honor hypothesis to suggest instead that differences between herding and farming cultures in violence actually stem from differences in status. His theory is based on a considerable psychological literature demonstrating that individuals from low-status groups (e.g. ethnic minorities) tend to engage in more vigilant psychological self-protection than those from high-status groups. Low-status people are much more sensitive to being socially rejected and are more inclined to monitor their environment for threats. Because of this vigilance toward protecting their sense of self-worth, low-status individuals are quicker to respond violently to personal threats and insults.
Henry first examined archival data on counties across the American South to show that murder rates from 1972 to 2006 were far higher in counties that were dry and hilly (conducive to herding) than those that were moist and flat (conducive to farming). Above and beyond the effect of geography, however, the level of status disparities in a particular county explained these increased murder rates. Even after accounting for the general level of wealth in a given county (wealthier counties tend to have lower murder rates), status disparity still predicted murder rates. Not content with merely looking at the United States, Henry analyzed data from 92 countries around the world, to find a replication of this pattern. From Albania to Zimbabwe, greater status disparities predicted greater levels of violence.
To provide evidence that tendencies for psychological self-protection were the crucial critical link between status and violence, Henry assessed survey data from over 1,500 Americans. In this nationally representative sample, low-socioeconomic status (low-SES) individuals reported far more psychological defensiveness in terms of considering themselves more likely to be taken advantage of and trusting people less.
Finally, in an experiment with both high- and low-SES college students, Henry demonstrated that boosting people’s sense of self-worth diminished aggressive tendencies amongst low-status individuals. Henry asked some students in the experiment to write about a time when they felt important and valuable. Other students did not receive this assignment, but instead completed a rote task about defining nouns. In a second portion of the experiment, all participants answered questions about how willing they would be to respond aggressively to threats. Consistent with the general population studies, college students from low-SES backgrounds expressed more willingness to respond aggressively to insults, but this tendency diminished markedly for those who first wrote about themselves as important and valuable.
Although this pattern of low-status compensation is important on its own, it is also unfortunate given a separate body of research on how people actually attain higher status. This research, recently summarized in an article by psychologists, Cameron Anderson and Gavin J Kilduff, shows that those who are effective in attaining status do so through behaving generously and helpfully to bolster their value to their group. In other words, low-status individuals’ aggressive and violent behavior is precisely the opposite of what they should be doing to ascend the societal totem pole.
Anderson and Kilduff demonstrated in one study that people in a group math problem-solving task who merely signaled their competence through being more vocal attained higher status and were able to do so regardless of their actual competence on the task. Research by psychologists Charlie L. Hardy and Mark Van Vugt, and sociologist Robb Willer have shown that generosity is the key to status. People afford greater status to individuals who donate more of their own money to a communal fund and those who sacrifice their individual interests for the public good. Demonstrating your value to a group—whether through competence or selflessness—appears to improve status. Anderson and Aiwa Shirako suggest that the amplifier for this effect is the degree to which one has social connections with others. Their studies involved MBA students engaging in a variety of negotiations tasks. They showed that individuals who behaved cooperatively attained a more positive reputation, but only if they were socially embedded in the group. Those who behaved cooperatively, but lacked connections went unnoticed. Social connectedness had similar effects for uncooperative MBA students. Those who were selfish and well-connected saw their reputation diminish.
The sum of these findings can begin to explain the troubled circumstances of those lowest in status. Ongoing efforts to maintain a positive view of oneself despite economic and social hardships can engage psychological defense mechanisms that are ultimately self-defeating. Instead of ingratiating themselves to those around them – this is the successful strategy for status attainment - low-status individuals may be more prone to bullying and hostile behavior, especially when provoked. Research identifying factors that lead to successful status-seeking provides some optimism, though. Individuals capable of signaling their worth to others rather than being preoccupied with signaling their worth to themselves may be able to break the self-defeating cycle of low-status behavior.
See what we're tweeting about
20 Comments
Add CommentSadly, many groups with the most power operate from the lowest relative moral base. Our current situation in which powerful industries and politicians feed each other is a prime example. Ingratiating oneself to such group moors seems a dubious way to gain status.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVery nice article. Is it just me or does it sound a lot easier to climb the status ladder by being nice to others than an all out brawl with the alpha dog. Or maybe I missed something.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPrison farming projects have shown to be a great way to improve self worth of inmates and reduce aggression. Not only do the inmates practice the responsibility of work and get active (waking up at 4AM and farming and tending to livestock all day), they also feel usefull as the farms are used to feed the prisons. This has shown to be much more useful than the mundane tasks given to inmates in many "factory" prisons.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately here in Canada, our "tough on crime" conservative government is planning on closing the prison farms only to pave them to make more room for more "factory" prisons which, unfortunately, will likely result in higher crime rates.
"Unfortunately here in Canada, our "tough on crime" conservative government "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisconservative government in Canada? Surely you jest.
I would contend that the perspective from which this article is written tends to lean toward high SES groups demonstrating favorable characteristics. I'm almost certain that if the sample groups included aggressive millionaire arms dealers and beneficent (but impoverished) nuns, there would be some deviant trends worth examining. Are we to say that low SES groups are bereft of certain traits in general, or that their surroundings dictate their behavior? It is an interesting read, but these theories are not well supported.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe research has a few flaws, IMHO.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn a given monkey troop, you will have a status gradient with the high status individuals at one end and the lowest at the other. The only way to get higher up the gradient is to lower someone else. It's a harsh reality. You will never find a functioning group of people who all have the same status. A gradient seems to be necessary for social primates, which may explain why attempts to install communism always fail.
The old saying "Too many chiefs and not enough Indians" says it all.
Another old saying "It's not what you know, but who you know" also has a lot of truth.
These researchers appear to be discovering folk wisdom.
If everyone in a group were to ingratiate themselves the same amount, they would not all obtain equal status. I suspect that aggression is a natural response to low status that has been selected for. Why it has been selected for I do not know, but selection serves to promote genes so it is probably beneficial over all. Maybe low status individuals in the past who were not willing to fight for higher status failed to obtain the breeding rights associated with higher status.
Companies that have filled their high status ranks with individuals who have been very adapt at ingratiating themselves but who are also incompetent will soon find themselves in trouble.
I wrote a free ebook all about this in some ways, the problem with people at the bottom of society is that we feel like nothing more than standardized, graded, economically and to some extent ideologically controlled off the shelf rent a-products for government, industry and the rich. I spent a lot of time figuring out the above description and even though most of the people at the bottom of society have no idea what socio-economics is, we at the bottom, certainly feel the effects of being at the bottom. My ebook is endorsed by some famous and incredibly smart people, but in the real world, it means nothing. Welcome to my world:-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.heaven-or-hell-its-your-choice.com/book/
car_bomb.htm
It's harder to get further down in society than me, at least in Europe, but I have never been violent towards anyone, despite massive provocation from all sides, including government. My book explores almost every aspect of this socio - economic dilemma and I try to see it from all sides. It's free, it took me 8 years to write and I am yet to receive anything for it in anyway, except for some good recommendations from some notable people. Some readers here, may enjoy it, this is my first and probably only post, yet I have been reading SciAm since I was 15, I am now 42 and still all this learning does me no good in my neck of the woods, I would have been better off being ignorant and happy, rather than smart and unhappy. A true story that sum's up so much of my and many others life's at my level:-
I and two friends where talking - one said "oh I failed economics at school", my other friend looked at me and smiled as if to say -"God this guy must be stupid", I looked back and instantly knew what was about to happen. The guy who smiled at me, then said to my other friend "how on earth did you fail cooking"?
There are so many levels to this simple true story, that if you see them all, then you are one of the lucky one's.
I went to the same school and yes, home economics was the closest I ever got to studying economics as well. Higher reasoning skills, why would you even bother teaching us at the bottom of society this particular type of skill set, after all we are not likely to need them, especially considering the type's of jobs we have been set up to do?
I could carry on or you could just read my free ebook:-
http://www.heaven-or-hell-its-your-choice.com
I forgot to say, if you deprive people of higher reasoning skills, psychology, philosophy, economics etc, then you inevitably leave them with less rational options to respond with, therefor violence is inevitably more likely to occur.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI went through an education system that neglected to mention any of the above subjects, in retrospect - I can see that it was by design rather than an oversight. Combine that with uneducated parents, uneducated class mates, popular TV = no conversation in the home or at school beyond a certain level = an underclass that can be exploited.
Thank God we invented the net.
This problem harkens back to the age old question expressed variously throughout history as self-other, one-many, particular-universal and the like. In recent decades the brain sciences have shown that the language left-brain hemisphere deals with logic and reason, while the intuitive right-brain hemisphere seeks out mute holistic patterns by which to integrate phenomenal experience as a whole. Both hemispheres seek a balance with our ancient emotional brain called the Limbic System. In this respect intuitive left brain insight leads left-brain reason, not vice-versa. Each of us has an integrating worldview that we intuitively entertain and then rationally try to justify. We also tend to emotionally identify with our explicit rational justifications rather than impartially examine our own intuitive perceptions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis means that one can find that glorious feeling of unity in seeking self-supremacy over others. Whole nations may become caught up in this, as Germany was under Hitler. One might also question the values of professional business managers produced by the Harvard School of Business where corporate enterprise is reduced to maximizing yield in terms of profit to anonymous shareholders, which essentially implies exploiting both the customer and employee to this end. Large corporations are able to do this with impunity and those who rise in them tend to accept this mindset of corporate supremacy in order to fit-in. For example it is OK to outsource everything in the name of free enterprise without regard to social responsibility at home. Rarely does a corporate world view seek an equitable balance between shareholder, customer and employee. Huge executive bonuses based on short term profit is at the root of the current financial meltdown when it should have been obvious to anyone that collapse of the mortgage market had to happen in the longer term. They just did not care because their worldview does not relate them responsibly to the broader social context. They do not feel the social consequences yet they succeed as individuals. Their worldview insulates them. But what does this kind of social separation do to them spiritually as members of humanity? This self-other problem relates also to the damage we are doing to the planet. The behavioural arguments presented by the authors are contextual without examining the context. We need a new paradigm.
For more on this see the website article Inside Our Three Brains at www.cosmic-mindreach.com.
We need a new paradigm.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI couldn't agree more with what you wrote, brilliantly written and I greatly admire your honesty and insight.
It is known from a long time ago that people in the top and in the bottom of social pyramid tend to be similar in attitudes and personality, differing from the mid range, that tends to be more formal and appearance caring than the extremes of social scales
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy are there no references, giving the DOIs of cited recent work?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot providing this key information, so that people can evaluate for themselves is a , to my mind, disgraceful example of both 'dumbing down' and 'elitism' on the part of SciAm.
New Editor please note
Over and over our so called leader live in either denial or want to propagandize its citizens. Why can't the vast majority live with and in a democracy that truly represents them? Why is a minority of wealthy citizens using their power to abuse democracy? The irony is that especially in America, with free speech, free press, and the freedom of information act, we have the all we need to indict our so called leaders as the corrupt, manipulative and astonishingly quite opposite the model of our so called democracy, quite fascist in its actions. One can only hope that these wealthy people , truly inept at participatory democracy, and forever challenging the concept that citizens will be able to decide their future and have things like FDR proposed in his Second Bill of Rights -
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA job with a living wage
Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies
A home
Medical care
Education
Recreation.
And now if I write the word "revolution", which I want to come about peacefully someone could be monitoring that word going over the internet to stifle even the most modest and peacloving descent that can be had. I am at a loss when truly progressive people represent the best interest of citizens and corporations and industry are invited to the White House and laws get passed in the name of "compormise" when we, main street citizens, are actually sold out, and an idea like public-government health care is killed. Where is the hope, the so called " land of opportunity" I keep hearing about. Capitalism is socialism for the rich, not my origional idea, but surely worth repeating. How can ordinary citizens regain the power they have in sheer numbers which they cannot get the government to reflect?
Seems like yet again, something that can be alleviated by better education. If we were actually taught logic, reason, and philosophy in school, we would be less likely to resort to violence (violence being the result of feeling like you've got no other option but violence to prove your point). Increased education would also lead to the individual being able to contribute more to the group and thus attain higher social status.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe also have to keep in mind that the guys at the top don't want us educated, because we'll recognize their corruption, and they don't want us feeling good about ourselves, because then they can suggest that their snake oil will make us feel better. Even religion, at least Christianity is guilty of encouraging low self-image as it tends to break down your self image, rebuilding it with the religion at the center so that your new self-image is inseparable from your religion. As I understand it, most cults do this, as does the military.
As I was reading this I couldn't help but think that the implication was that violence would be drastically reduced if we were all made equal in status... which sounds like socialism. I think it also points out that it would be nearly impossible to make socialism really work simply because status seems to be on our minds far too much. However, is our fascination with social status a product of our nature, or is it a product of what we learn from society? That would be hard to tell.
At some point money only serves as a sign of social status. Think about it, do the world's wealthiest people need that much money to survive? You can only buy so much health, comfort, eduction and entertainment. Let the less fortunate have the rest.
I would argue that the greed requires that the greedy see people as a means, not an end. As such, it is immoral.
The only thing I can think of is to tax greed, or at least set up a tax system and labor laws to tax greed such as a high flat tax combined with an extensive rebate program and a form of maximum wage. IE: tax everyone 25%, take all the tax money gathered, divide it in half, keep half, distribute the other half to everyone equally as a tax rebate up (but not exceeding) the amount paid in taxes. Combine this with labor laws stating that no individual being paid by the company (including shareholders and CEO's) can make more than n times what their lowest paid employee makes (based on yearly pay assuming a 40h work week for comparisons between hourly/salary employees). What n should be is up for debate. Between 8 and 30 has been suggested.
It all depends on the socio/material environment in which the individual is born or finds himself. When laws and prosperity are the order of the day, following the rules and cooperating might get you further up the ladder. However, in times of catastrophic failure of the environmental basis through natural disaster (ET impacts, vulcanism, plague, famine) or anthropic disaster (invasion, revolution, economic collapse, environmental degredation) the more aggressive responder might be selected for and achieve status.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is why the underlying genetic substrates for cooperation and competition, altruism and greed, and love and hate-- among other seemingly diametrically-opposed human behaviors-- have continued to be maintained in the human genotype and therefore phenotype. Our brief, recent period of elected governments, technological advance, international cooperation, and ease of living for those lucky few in western democracies is nothing compared to the vast prehistoric era when our genes and their phenotypic expression-- among which are our behaviors-- were being selected for in the crucible of a physically, chemically, and biologically chaotic but always violent world.
This was the most helpful and rewarding connection among them all. I love your comments!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you for your comments. Always need reminder about the limbic system . I would love to read more of your observations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://the-mouse-trap.com/2009/11/16/the-five-domains-of-human-social-experiencethe-scarf-model/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisZoop!
Instead of placing the responsibility on the people with low self-esteem to "be nice" to others and thereby attain respect, why not ask other people to treat them more respectfully from the start so they will feel they have less to prove?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWalking into a situation where one instantly knows one lacks credibility is not easy. And expecting people in that situation to be generous, comfortable, socially sophisticated, and self-confident is extremely naive. If someone knows they are at the bottom of the totem pole in a social situation, being generous may not be the first thought that occurs to them. They will be thinking about their disadvantages.
The responsibility for correcting this problem lies with both groups of people. And telling lower-SES people to "be nicer" doesn't solve the problem that they are operating at a disadvantage from the start - one which they did not choose.
When higher-SES people become more respectful, that makes it easier for everyone else.
I have noticed through observation that many, maybe even most people who get in trouble with the police for what should be minor offences, do so because they can't control their emotions. It seems to go in line with what the author is saying. Additionally, I would think that people on the bottom rungs of society often live under very frustrating conditions, which are not only hard on their feelings of self-worth, but are also otherwise frustrating and stressful, which compounds the problem. Somehow, though, most of us, even just plain old middle-class people seemed to have matured enough to realize that throwing a tantrum doesn't help, even when you think the situation is unfair. To some degree in society, might does make right, but there is a different perception as to what constitutes might, depending on class and background. That is my 2 cents.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this