Status

Gaining Status

Groups are seldom arranged along entirely egalitarian lines. Illustrating this point, the Harvard sociologist Robert F. Bales convened small decision-making groups of undergraduate students and found that typically within the first hour-long [Page 786]meeting, a hierarchy of status had developed. Usually, these status hierarchies formed quickly and smoothly. Where power struggles did occur, this postponed but did not cancel the development of a stable, unequal status hierarchy.

Status within these hierarchies can be earned or achieved by one's actions, or it can be assigned or ascribed on the basis of inherited characteristics, such as the status of one's family, race, or gender. This distinction is reflected in expectation states theory by Joseph Berger, in which the status granted to an individual depends on how much he or she is expected to help realize group goals. Individuals with characteristics that are task-relevant, such as expertise and talent, will tend to be granted high status. Individuals who are prototypical of the group are also seen to be likely to further its interests and are granted status and, indeed, power as a result. But diffuse status characteristics such as family, race, and gender also influence group members’ perception that an individual may assist the group. Therefore, these characteristics influence the status awarded to an individual. Indeed these traits are often more apparent than task-relevant characteristics in the early stages of group formation. These characteristics may therefore have an unduly powerful influence on the initial assignment of status.

This process, sometimes referred to as status generalization, illustrates how individuals’ status outside the group affects their status within the group. It means that similar people tend to occupy high- and low-status positions within groups, even when the formation of each group is entirely independent. For example, when groups are composed of both men and women, men tend to occupy the high-status positions, be those groups political, cultural, religious, or economic. Thus, status hierarchies within local groups tend to enact and replicate global status hierarchies.

Diffuse status characteristics need not be social. For example, tall people tend to have higher status than do short people. This effect seems reliable in both experiments and in field studies, which show for example that CEOs are taller than average and tall job applicants are more likely to be successful. The link between status and height is implicit in the etiquette of many cultures, in which low-status individuals bow, curtsey, or even sit or kneel to confirm the higher status of high-status individuals. Metaphors such as “social climber,” “upper class,” and “ideas above one's station” also reflect an implicit cultural equation of social status with physical height or elevation.

...