677828

research-article2017
PPSXXX10.1177/1745691616677828Mattan et al.Social Status and Person Perception

Perspectives on Psychological Science

How Social Status Shapes Person 2017, Vol. 12(3) 468­–507

© The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
Perception and Evaluation: A Social sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1745691616677828
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616677828

Neuroscience Perspective www.psychologicalscience.org/PPS

Bradley D. Mattan1, Jennifer T. Kubota1,2, and

Jasmin Cloutier1
1
Department of Psychology, University of Chicago, and 2Center for the Study of Race,
Politics, and Culture, University of Chicago

Abstract
Inferring the relative rank (i.e., status) of others is essential to navigating social hierarchies. A survey of the expanding social
psychological and neuroscience literatures on status reveals a diversity of focuses (e.g., perceiver vs. agent), operationalizations
(e.g., status as dominance vs. wealth), and methodologies (e.g., behavioral, neuroscientific). Accommodating this burgeoning
literature on status in person perception, the present review offers a novel social neuroscientific framework that integrates
existing work with theoretical clarity. This framework distinguishes between five key concepts: (1) strategic pathways to
status acquisition for agents, (2) status antecedents (i.e., perceptual and knowledge-based cues that confer status rank), (3)
status dimensions (i.e., domains in which an individual may be ranked, such as wealth), (4) status level (i.e., one’s rank
along a given dimension), and (5) the relative importance of a given status dimension, dependent on perceiver and context
characteristics. Against the backdrop of this framework, we review multiple dimensions of status in the nonhuman and
human primate literatures. We then review the behavioral and neuroscientific literatures on the consequences of perceived
status for attention and evaluation. Finally, after proposing a social neuroscience framework, we highlight innovative
directions for future social status research in social psychology and neuroscience.

Keywords
person evaluation, person perception, socioeconomic status, social cognition, neuroscience, social neuroscience,
social status

Glossary

Key Concepts in the Study of Social Hierarchy

Social Hierarchy: A coherent and generally agreed upon ranking of a group of individuals along one or more social
dimensions bearing relevance to that group.
Social Status: The relative rank of an individual along one or more social dimensions within a given social hierarchy.
Power: One’s degree of control over others’ resources and/or outcomes.
Prestige: Freely conferred deference afforded to an individual on the basis of that individual’s virtue or ability. Considered
as a broad dimension of social status, individuals may be ranked based on their perceived level of prestige. Prestige can also
represent a pathway or strategy to status acquisition.
Dominance: Intimidation of others based on physical or social threats. Considered as a dimension of social status, individuals
may be ranked on their perceived level of dominance. Dominance can also represent a pathway or strategy to status acquisition.

(continued)

Corresponding Author:
Jasmin Cloutier, Department of Psychology, University of Chicago, 5848 S. University Ave., Chicago, IL 60637
E-mail: [email protected]
Social Status and Person Perception 469

Glossary. (continued)

SES: Socioeconomic status (SES) is a multidimensional construct usually based on objectively assessed dimensions such as
income, occupation, and education level. Considered as a dimension of social status, individuals may be ranked based on their
SES. Pursuit of wealth or education may also represent a pathway or strategy to status acquisition.

Framework-Specific Concepts
Pathway to Status Acquisition and/or Enhancement: Strategic means of acquiring social rank through, for example,
greater dominance, prestige, or SES.
Status Antecedent: The perceptual cues or person knowledge allowing perceivers to differentiate an individual’s hierarchical
rank.
Status Dimension: The domains in which an individual may be ranked such as dominance, prestige, or education/finances.
Status Level: A target’s status rank on a single status dimension (e.g., low, middle, or high).
Relative Importance of Status Dimension: Dependent on the situation, perceiver, and target, the weight given to one
status dimension compared to another in the determination of a target’s overall hierarchical rank.

Social hierarchies are ubiquitous in everyday life and, attend to and evaluate others. In the course of this review,
indeed, have a profound impact on how we perceive oth- we suggest that placing disproportionate importance on
ers (Cheney & Seyfarth, 2008; Cloutier, Cardenas-Iniguez, social status inferred from a single social dimension (e.g.,
Gyurovski, Barakzai, & Li, 2016; Fiske, 2010, 2015; Halevy, dominance, competence, or wealth) can distort our under-
Chou, Cohen, & Livingston, 2012; Hare & Tomasello, standing of the impact of social status on social cognition.
2004; Kraus, Tan, & Tannenbaum, 2013; Magee & Galinsky, Integrating research from different levels of inquiry (e.g.,
2008; Varnum, 2013, 2016). However, even with the from nonhuman primates to human neuroimaging), we
increased effort to understand how social status shapes emphasize the importance of considering alternative
cognitive development (Bradley & Corwyn, 2002; Duncan, social status dimensions (e.g., morality), in addition to the
Brooks-Gunn, & Klebanov, 1994; Hackman, Gallop, more frequently studied dimensions (e.g., dominance or
Evans, & Farah, 2015; Hoff, 2003; Noble, McCandliss, & finances).
Farah, 2007) and structural development of the brain In order to accommodate the emerging evidence that
(Brito & Noble, 2014; Hanson, Chandra, Wolfe, & Pollak, social status is both dynamic and derived from multiple
2011; Hanson et al., 2013; Lawson, Duda, Avants, Wu, & sources, we ultimately propose a broad theoretical frame-
Farah, 2013; Luby et al., 2013; Noble et al., 2015), the work to investigate social status and its consequences for
impact of perceived social status on social cognition and person perception and evaluation. For a schematic of the
human brain function has received relatively little atten- proposed framework, see Figure 1. Central to this frame-
tion, possibly as a consequence of challenges associ- work is the distinction between how status is acquired,
ated with defining this multifaceted construct (Cloutier, what social dimensions confer status, and the conse-
Cardenas-Iniquez, et al., 2016; Fiske, 2015). In this review, quences of such status. From the perspective of the agent
we tackle these challenges and propose a framework that (i.e., horizontal axis of Fig. 1), an individual may strategi-
integrates across literatures and methodologies in order to cally acquire greater status by improving and/or shifting
gain better understanding of the constructs evoked in attention to his or her rank on one or more dimensions
investigations of social status and to facilitate the develop- of status (e.g., competence, finances, morality). As dis-
ment of increasingly robust predictions for future research. cussed in greater detail in the section on human status
We initially survey how the impact of social status on dimensions, a CEO adopting a prestige-based pathway to
person perception is currently characterized in the non- status may wish to present himself or herself as more
human primate, social-behavioral, and brain-imaging competent and/or moral relative to his or her peers.
literatures. Specifically, we review some of the theorized Another CEO adopting a dominance-based pathway to
determinants of social status in nonhuman and human status may instead focus on other dimensions, such as
primates. In doing so, we emphasize the distinction physical formidability. Although not the main focus of
between how status is acquired by social agents (i.e., this review, there has been considerable research on how
strategic pathways to increase status) and the social agents acquire status (for a review, see Cheng & Tracy,
dimensions conferring status on perceived social targets 2014). The current review focuses instead on how social
(i.e., status dimensions). We subsequently review some status guides the perceiver’s attention to and evaluations
of the consequences of perceived status for how we of others (i.e., vertical axis of Fig. 1). The first step in this
470 Mattan et al.

Consequences
Attention/Evaluation

Status Differentiation

Status
Level
Dim. 1 Dim. 2

Status
Agent Pathways Dim. 1 Dimensions Dim. 2
Acquisition

Antecedents
Perceptual/Knowledge
Context

Context
Perceiver

Fig. 1.  A schematic illustration of the proposed framework as it applies to perceivers (ascending blue
boxes) and agents (red boxes, from left to right). Both processes depend on the dimension(s) of status
in question (central purple box). Agents may acquire status vis-à-vis one or more dimensions of status
(e.g., prestige, dominance). Perceivers infer the status of others along a given dimension on the basis
of perceptual and knowledge-based antecedents. These antecedents may result in different status levels
for each dimension. Consequences in attention and evaluation (among other processes) follow from
a target’s perceived status level. Critically, context for both perceivers and agents may impact a status
dimension’s relative importance.

process involves the perception of distinct cues (i.e., Drawing on the above framework, we introduce some
antecedents) that convey status. Antecedents for a given key terms that are intended to more clearly structure dis-
status dimension (e.g., dominance) may be visible (e.g., cussion of existing and future work on social status.
physical formidability) or knowledge-based (e.g., aware- Accordingly, this review differentiates (1) the strategic
ness of the individual’s influence over others). These pathways to status acquisition (i.e., means of acquiring
antecedents ultimately allow the perceiver to rank others higher rank through, for example, greater dominance,
along dimensions of status (i.e., status differentiation). prestige, or wealth/education), (2) the antecedents of sta-
For example, after initial contact with a stranger, a per- tus inferences about others (i.e., the perceptual cues or
ceiver may rank him as low in financial status based on person knowledge conferring hierarchical rank), (3) the
clothing and accent/diction (i.e., perceptual antecedents) dimensions of status (i.e., domains in which an individual
and high in moral status based on the revelation (i.e., may be ranked such as competence, morality, finances),
person knowledge, not perceptual) that he volunteers at (4) the level of status (i.e., a target’s status rank on a
an afterschool program in a low-income neighborhood. single dimension such as low, middle, or high), and (5)
Taken together, the stranger’s relative rank along finan- the relative importance of a dimension for the perceiver
cial and moral status dimensions (among other dimen- in a given social context (e.g., moral status may be rela-
sions) ultimately has consequences for how the perceiver tively more important than finances for status differentia-
will attend to and evaluate him. Finally, one dimension may tion and status-based evaluation of religious leaders).
hold greater influence over person perception, depend- The five distinctions outlined in the above framework are
ing on its relative importance in the current context. For necessarily fluid. Depending on the frame of reference
example, the stranger’s moral status may matter more (e.g., agent vs. perceiver), prestige may be construed as
within a hierarchy of individuals involved in charitable a pathway to status acquisition or as a dimension of per-
activities but perhaps less so in a hierarchy comprised of ceived social status. Considering prestige as a pathway
his coworkers at his day job as a mechanic. (i.e., horizontal axis of Fig. 1), a researcher’s focus would
Social Status and Person Perception 471

be on the agent’s use of prestige-relevant behaviors in the a single and generalizable measure of social status is dif-
strategic enhancement of her or his own status. Consider- ficult to formulate because social hierarchies can be
ing prestige as a status dimension during person percep- based on various social dimensions, and the relative
tion (i.e., vertical axis of Fig. 1), the focus would be on the importance of these dimensions may depend on charac-
perceiver’s differentiation of prestige levels in others. teristics of the individual and of the context. For some
To make the above framework more concrete, let us perceivers and contexts, status may be conferred by
consider a U.S. presidential election. Among politically amount of disposable income (i.e., financial status). For
engaged individuals, there is a general consensus that others, physical characteristics, such as attractiveness
presidential candidates from both major political parties (Bauldry, Shanahan, Russo, Roberts, & Damian, 2016;
are high in status. Irrespective of any differences in their Vernon, Sutherland, Young, & Hartley, 2014) or fitness
strategic pathways to acquire greater status, they are both (Gurven & von Rueden, 2006; von Rueden, Gurven, &
ranked very high in the hierarchy of American politicians. Kaplan, 2008), may carry greater weight in conferring sta-
However, the rich constellations of status levels along tus. Yet others may place greater value on occupational
multiple dimensions (i.e., finances, competence, moral- prestige demonstrating intellectual accomplishments
ity, dominance) that contribute to each candidate’s over- (irrespective of remuneration) or by the possession and
all status may vary dramatically. Moreover, depending on enactment of well-developed moral principles. These are
the context of the perceiver, these objectively high-status but some examples of different dimensions of social sta-
candidates may be viewed with contempt rather than tus. In light of this diversity of status dimensions, a key
receiving the deference commonly associated with pres- objective of this review is to provide a framework to
tige. This example illustrates the importance of taking a investigate how social status can differentially shape per-
multidimensional approach to the study of status rather son perception and evaluation while highlighting how
than defining status merely in terms of a single dimen- the outcomes of such processes may vary depending on
sion (e.g., prestige). The following section provides a the dimensions conferring status in a given context. In
review of some possible dimensions of status in both the following section, we review both the nonhuman and
nonhuman and human primate research. human primate literatures to identify potential conver-
Following an overview of the multiple dimensions of gence and gain clarity about how status is acquired by
social status, the current review then examines the con- individuals and perceived in others. In the interest of
sequences of status in the social-cognitive domains of advancing future research directions, we also consider
attention and person evaluation. We chose these domains dimensions that have received less attention in these
as they have currently received the most attention in the respective literatures.
relatively scarce psychological literature on social status.
The proposed theoretical framework will facilitate preci-
Status dimensions and antecedents in
sion in operationalization by defining and outlining the
distinction between how status is conferred and the con- nonhuman primates
sequences of status for person perception and evalua- Given the evolutionary importance of status in organizing
tion. The framework will also integrate across literatures the lives of various social organisms (Aquiloni, Gonçalves,
and methodologies, ultimately providing unique insights Inghilesi, & Gherardi, 2012; Boehm, 2012; Chase, Tovey,
for future research. Future directions derived from this Spangler-Martin, & Manfredonia, 2002; Chiao, 2010;
theoretical framework will be proposed to better inte- Grosenick, Clement, & Fernald, 2007; Henrich & Gil-White,
grate findings from ongoing behavioral and neuroimag- 2001), any framework on the antecedents and conse-
ing investigations of the impact of social status on person quences of social status in humans would do well to also
perception and evaluation. consider research on nonhuman primates. We briefly
summarize this literature in the context of our proposed
Multiple Dimensions of Social Status theoretical framework for the psychology of status (strate-
gic pathways, antecedents, dimensions, level, and relative
and Their Antecedents importance). For a more comprehensive review of the
Whereas the ubiquity of status-based hierarchical social nonhuman primate literature within this framework, see
organization among animals and humans is generally the online supplemental material.
agreed upon, it is a challenge to provide a precise and On the whole, the nonhuman primate literature on
inclusive definition of social status. However, not directly status is consistent with the possibility that multiple
tackling this challenge can lead researchers to rely on a dimensions of status may guide social interactions in
host of generalized definitions of social status. Critically, nonhuman primate species. Dominance is believed to
472 Mattan et al.

play a central role in structuring primate hierarchies, with Status dimensions and antecedents
high-dominance individuals receiving greater access to in humans
scarce resources (Barrett, Gaynor, & Henzi, 2002; Barrett,
Henzi, Weingrill, Lycett, & Hill, 1999; Henzi et al., 2003; In this section, we review multiple social dimensions
Verderane, Izar, Visalberghi, & Fragaszy, 2013) and thought to confer status in human hierarchies. Given the
desired mating partners (Bulger, 1993; Cheney & Seyfarth, complexity of human social hierarchies, it is perhaps
2008; but see Bercovitch, 1986, 1991; Mitchell & Maple, unsurprising that the study of how social status shapes
1985; Rowell, 1974; Strum, 1982). Beyond dominance, person perception and evaluation is characterized by a
alternative hierarchy dimensions may be related to the diversity of methodological and conceptual approaches.
animal’s affiliative tendencies and may be pursued via Here, we integrate across these methodologies and litera-
several pathways, including grooming behavior (Frank & tures. Inspired in part by the nonhuman primate research
Silk, 2009; Silk, Alberts, & Altmann, 2003), coalition for- reviewed above (see also the online supplemental mate-
mation (Bercovitch, 1988), and tolerance for the physical rial), this section begins with an examination of domi-
proximity of conspecifics (Horner, 2010; Seyfarth, Silk, & nance as a key dimension of status before considering
Cheney, 2012; Silk et al., 2003). Other promising path- affiliative dimensions from which status may also be
ways/antecedents include social network size (Noonan inferred. In contrast to the nonhuman primate literature,
et al., 2014; Sallet et al., 2011) and personality character- these affiliative dimensions are considerably more varied
istics (Brent et al., 2014; Seyfarth et al., 2012; Weinstein & in the human literature. Indeed, whereas the nonhuman
Capitanio, 2008). In light of the observed individual dif- primate literature reviewed earlier suggests the potential
ferences in affiliative tendencies, one exciting question is for status dimensions based on affiliative tendencies, the
whether and how nonhuman primate species encode, human literature is more extensive in this regard. Possible
store, and retrieve generalized knowledge about their affiliative dimensions conferring social status in humans
conspecifics’ relative propensities for affiliation. are often referred to as prestige and, to a lesser extent
Nonetheless, further research directly examining the SES, in addition to other less closely investigated status
interaction of affiliation- and dominance-related knowl- dimensions such as morality, warmth, and attractiveness.
edge on overall social status is needed. In approaching In each of the following subsections, we emphasize
this research, it will be important to develop means of the importance of distinguishing the strategic pathways
assessing overall social status beyond the unidimensional by which status is achieved from the social dimensions
dominance hierarchy that appears to be frequently conveying status. For example, whereas education is cen-
assumed in nonhuman primate research. One possible tral to SES and a key determinant of social class (e.g.,
means of assessing overall status may be to consider the Curhan et al., 2014; Snibbe & Markus, 2005), its pursuit in
social, physical, and reproductive well-being of each a given social group may be a pathway toward greater
individual in addition to his or her dominance level (e.g., status on one dimension (e.g., artistic proficiency) but
Silk et al., 2003). Although few studies have followed this perhaps lower status on another dimension (e.g.,
line of inquiry, its pursuit is consistent with previous calls finances). Throughout this section, we highlight the
to consider multiple status hierarchy dimensions in the potential for interactions between social dimensions as
nonhuman animal literature (Bercovitch, 1988; Harding, well as the limitations of overreliance on single dimen-
1980; Mitchell & Maple, 1985; Platt, Seyfarth, & Cheney, sions when investigating the impact of social status in
2016). human social cognition.
Despite the present gaps in nonhuman primate Before beginning our review of the human social sta-
research, there is considerable evidence to suggest that tus literature, it is important to place our framework in
status is not a singular construct derived from a single the context of an existing conceptual approach. Drawing
dimension. Instead, status dimensions and the pathways on evolutionary theory (Henrich & Gil-White, 2001) and
to acquiring status along these dimensions vary within evidence from some of the nonhuman animal literature
and between nonhuman primate species. Moreover, mul- reviewed above, Cheng and colleagues have proposed
tiple antecedents (i.e., perceptual cues and knowledge) two main pathways to status attainment in humans: dom-
may be used by perceivers to infer the status levels of inance and prestige (Cheng & Tracy, 2014; Cheng, Tracy,
conspecifics. These findings imply complexity in opera- Foulsham, Kingstone, & Henrich, 2013). They theorize
tionalizing status beyond the human species. In subse- that dominance- and prestige-related behaviors are inde-
quent sections, we will revisit these findings, emphasizing pendent pathways to human social status. However,
the multidimensional nature of social status that may be dominance and prestige may also be considered as dif-
common to all primate species (including our own) and ferent social dimensions conveying status (e.g., Case &
highlighting any differences that may have emerged with Maner, 2014), each with its own host of perceptual/
Homo sapiens. knowledge-based antecedents and consequences for
Social Status and Person Perception 473

social cognition. Consistent with this conceptualization, posture (Freeman, Rule, Adams, & Ambady, 2009; Marsh,
the following section discusses dominance and prestige Blair, Jones, Soliman, & Blair, 2009; Tiedens & Fragale,
as umbrella terms that include potentially multiple social 2003), emotional expression (Chiao et al., 2008; Haaker,
dimensions, each of which may confer status during per- Molapour, & Olsson, 2016; B. C. Jones, DeBruine, Little,
son perception. Finally, we expand our review beyond Watkins, & Feinberg, 2011; Kraus & Chen, 2013), and
dominance- and prestige-related dimensions to include facial dimensions/structure (Carré & McCormick, 2008;
other frequently studied dimensions of status such as Carré, McCormick, & Mondloch, 2009; Hehman, Leitner,
wealth. & Freeman, 2014; B. C. Jones et al., 2010; Oosterhof &
Todorov, 2008; Perrett et al., 1998). Auditory cues such as
Dominance deeper vocal pitch (Cheng, Tracy, Ho, & Henrich, 2016),
Dominance as a pathway.  As a part of our evolution- more robust laughter (Oveis, Spectre, Smith, Liu, & Kelt-
ary heritage (see the preceding section and online sup- ner, 2016), or eye contact while speaking versus listening
plemental material on the nonhuman primate literature), (Dovidio & Ellyson, 1982) may also confer dominance.
social dominance is thought to be a key pathway to sta- Possibly influenced by the nonhuman primate litera-
tus attainment in humans (C. Anderson & Kilduff, 2009b; ture where perceptual cues indicative of dominance are
Case & Maner, 2014; Hamilton, Carré, Mehta, Olmstead, often presented as primary antecedents of social status,
& Whitaker, 2015; Mazur & Booth, 1998). Dominance variation of physical dominance cues is at times used to
behavior can take the form of fear-based coercion, where operationalize “status” in psychological research with
subordinate individuals are obliged to defer to others humans (Freeman et al., 2009; Marsh et al., 2009; Mehta,
with higher dominance levels or else suffer material or Jones, & Josephs, 2008; Neave, Laing, Fink, & Manning,
psychological harm (Cheng & Tracy, 2014). Although 2003). However, physical dominance in humans is
dominant individuals may seldom punish subordinates unlikely to be a strong antecedent of hierarchical status
with overt sanctions or violence, threats or manipula- in many contexts. In a study of 48 unacquainted boys in
tion can serve to motivate subordinate behavior (Maner the second grade (Dodge, 1983), it was found that peer
& Mead, 2010). For example, a dominant employer popularity rankings after 2 weeks were associated with
may threaten employees with dismissal or pay cuts if avoidance of aggression during free play (see also Coie &
a desired objective is not met. Consistent with this sce- Kupersmidt, 1983) and greater social competence (see
nario, some have proposed two kinds of dominance: also Hazen & Black, 1989). This is consistent with exten-
aggressive dominance, characterized by physical formi- sive work showing that physical aggression has an
dability/intimidation, and social dominance, conceptual- increasingly negative impact on peer evaluations as chil-
ized as manipulative control over resources or outcomes dren mature (Cairns, Cairns, Neckerman, Gest, & Gariepy,
(Cook, Den Ouden, Heyes, & Cools, 2014; Fiske, 1993; 1988; Coie, Dodge, & Coppotelli, 1982; Dodge, Coie,
Hawley, 1999; Magee & Galinsky, 2008; Van Vugt, Hogan, Pettit, & Price, 1990; Newcomb, Bukowski, & Pattee,
& Kaiser, 2008).1 1993; Pettit, Bakshi, Dodge, & Coie, 1990). By the time
children finish elementary school, physical intimidation
Dominance-related status antecedents. In humans appears to correlate negatively with peer ratings of status
and nonhuman primates alike, a variety of perceptually and likeability (Hawley, 1999). As social and cognitive
available antecedents (e.g., faces and bodies) have been abilities develop, children adopt more sophisticated stra-
shown to efficiently confer impressions of physical domi- tegic paths to facilitate dominance-based status acquisi-
nance (Ellyson & Dovidio, 1985; Hall, Coats, & LeBeau, tion such as intimidation or manipulation (Boulton, 1996;
2005; Todorov, 2011; Todorov, Said, Engell, & Oosterhof, Garandeau & Cillessen, 2006; Olweus, 1993; Sutton,
2008). Some (but not all) of these antecedents are cor- Smith, & Swettenham, 1999). Others may opt for more
related with aggressive tendencies observed in the real cooperative strategies (Edwards, 1994; French, Waas,
world. Examples from previous research include body Stright, & Baker, 1986; Kalma, Visser, & Peeters, 1993;
weight (but not facial width-to-height ratio) in hockey Williams & Schaller, 1993). It would appear that the
players (Deaner, Goetz, Shattuck, & Schnotala, 2012) and development of increasingly complex social-cognitive
diminished smile intensity in professional fighters (Kraus abilities may be useful for acquiring and/or maintaining
& Chen, 2013). The ability to infer the formidability of oth- dominance vis-à-vis these more sophisticated social path-
ers appears to develop from a young age (Hawley, 1999; ways (Cook et  al., 2014). This acquired person-knowledge
Strayer & Strayer, 1976; Thomsen, Frankenhuis, Ingold- of dominance can then be stored in memory and orga-
Smith, & Carey, 2011). For example, infants as young as nize future interactions, potentially becoming integrated
10 months infer the likely winner in an agonistic conflict with perceptual antecedents of dominance. Taken
of goals based on physical size (Thomsen et al., 2011). together, these findings suggest that physical dominance
In adults, dominance is inferred from cues such as body may play a small role in the way others’ status is inferred
474 Mattan et al.

relative to the impact of nonvisual attributes such as influ- typically be inferable by fewer perceptual antecedents.
ence (e.g., through social intimidation or competence). Existing research has considered some perceptual ante-
In summary, it would appear that dominance (viz., cedents of prestige such as prideful expressions (Martens
physical formidability) is readily perceived from numer- & Tracy, 2012; Steckler & Tracy, 2014). This nonthreat-
ous verbal and nonverbal cues. Although visual domi- ening expression, universally observed following an
nance cues can and do influence person perception, our important achievement (Tracy & Matsumoto, 2008), is
review of the nonhuman (see also the online supplemen- recognized cross-culturally as a combination of nonver-
tal material) and human primate literatures highlights that bal cues including a subtle smile, a slight backward head
dominance is unlikely to be the major antecedent of tilt, an expanded and erect posture, and arms either rest-
social status in many contexts. Indeed, prestige-related ing on the hips or raised above the head (Tracy & Robins,
social competencies (e.g., affiliative tendency, generosity, 2004; Tracy, Shariff, Zhao, & Henrich, 2013). Other pos-
competence, reciprocity, morality) can play a crucial role sible perceptual antecedents of prestige include physi-
in inferences of human social status levels across the life cal health (Reyes-Garcia et al., 2008; Reyes-García et al.,
span (Cheng et al., 2013; Flynn, Reagans, Amanatullah, & 2009) and professional attire (DeWall & Maner, 2008;
Ames, 2006; Hardy & Van Vugt, 2006; Hawley, 1999; D. C. Freeman, Penner, Saperstein, Scheutz, & Ambady, 2011;
Jones, 1984; La Freniere & Charlesworth, 1983; Lyle & Maner, DeWall, & Gailliot, 2008).
Smith, 2014). In the following sections, we consider these Beyond the somewhat limited perceptual antecedents
prestige-related dimensions of human social status. of prestige, a considerable body of work has focused on
knowledge-based antecedents of prestige. Across cul-
Prestige tures, one key observation is that higher status is associ-
Prestige as a pathway.  In contrast to status conferred ated with greater perceived competence (Cuddy, Fiske, &
through physical formidability and social intimidation, Glick, 2008; Cuddy et al., 2009; Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, &
status may also be achieved through demonstrations of Xu, 2002; Varnum, 2013), leading some to suggest that
skill (Gurven & von Rueden, 2006; von Rueden et al., status and competence are overlapping constructs (Fiske,
2008), knowledge (Reyes-Garcia et al., 2008), or gener- Cuddy, & Glick, 2007; Fiske, Dupree, Nicolas, & Swencionis,
osity (Cheng, Tracy, & Henrich, 2010; Flynn et al., 2006; 2016). In line with the hypothesized link between pres-
Hardy & Van Vugt, 2006; Lyle & Smith, 2014; Maner & tige and competence (Gurven & von Rueden, 2006;
Mead, 2010; Mead & Maner, 2012b). Such exceptional Henrich & Gil-White, 2001; von Rueden et al., 2008; von
displays and attributes are thought to elicit perceptions Rueden, Gurven, & Kaplan, 2011), a number of compe-
of prestige. Although dominance and prestige both con- tencies ranging from hunting skills (von Rueden et al.,
tribute to social status levels in humans, these dimen- 2008) to advice-giving abilities (Cheng et al., 2010) have
sions are suggested to be independent and distinct in been found to correlate with impressions of prestige (but
their psychological underpinnings (Cheng et al., 2013). not dominance). Beyond skill-based competence, it is
Unlike with dominance, which is linked to intimidation, thought that social competence cues (e.g., displays of
prestige is associated with a free conferral of deference affiliation or wisdom) may also convey prestige (Cheng
by subordinates (Henrich & Gil-White, 2001). In turn, et al., 2010; for a review of other competencies, see
subordinates are thought to benefit directly or indirectly Cheng & Tracy, 2014). Existing work suggests that trade-
from the prestigious individual’s competence or generos- offs exist between inferences of warmth and competence
ity (Henrich & Gil-White, 2001). In our evolutionary past, during general impression formation and management
elevating the status of prestigious individuals is assumed (Fiske et al., 2016; Holoien & Fiske, 2013; Kervyn, Judd,
to have facilitated a more rapid transference and accu- & Yzerbyt, 2009; Kervyn, Yzerbyt, & Judd, 2010; Kervyn,
mulation of knowledge and goods, ultimately enhancing Yzerbyt, Judd, & Nunes, 2009; Swencionis & Fiske, 2016;
inclusive fitness of the group over time. Because pres- Yzerbyt, Kervyn, & Judd, 2008). For example, individuals
tige depends on the evaluation and transmission of skills construed as high in warmth (absent any ascribed degree
and knowledge (i.e., social learning), it is thought that it of competence) may be consequently perceived as low in
may be unique to humans (Cheng & Tracy, 2014; Henrich competence. One as-yet-untested possibility is that the
& Gil-White, 2001). Nonetheless, we speculate that the effect of warmth on perceived status level may be mediated
affiliation-related behaviors in nonhuman primates (see by stereotypic warmth–competence correspondences.2
the online supplemental material) may have served as In addition to competence and warmth, prestige may
a precursor for prestige (among other affiliation-related be inferred from other knowledge-based antecedents
status dimensions) in our evolutionary history. such as perceived generosity (Cheng et al., 2010; Flynn
et al., 2006; Hardy & Van Vugt, 2006; Lyle & Smith, 2014;
Prestige-related status antecedents. In contrast to Maner & Mead, 2010; Mead & Maner, 2012b) or moral
dominance and to SES (discussed below), prestige may reputation (Boehm, 2012; Cloutier, Cardenas-Iniquez,
Social Status and Person Perception 475

et al., 2016; Fiske, 2010). Although one could suggest that and dimensions of social status. In this section, we con-
generosity or morality overlap with warmth (Abele, sider one of the most frequent contemporary metrics of
Cuddy, Judd, & Yzerbyt, 2008; Cuddy et al., 2008), there human social status: accumulated wealth and education.
is evidence to suggest that moral character is separable Indeed, wealth and education are considered to be facets
from warmth in its contribution to impression formation of SES. SES is a multidimensional construct usually based
(Goodwin, Piazza, & Rozin, 2014). Indeed, it is thought on objectively assessed dimensions such as income,
that character-diagnostic aspects of behavior (e.g., moral occupation, and education level. Income reflects the
intentions) receive greater weight during impression for- amount of resources available to an individual and may
mation than the actual positive or negative outcomes of be assessed in a number of ways (e.g., personal, family,
that behavior (Uhlmann, Pizarro, & Diermeier, 2015). or adjusted income; see Brito & Noble, 2014; Duncan &
In light of these findings, it is important to note that, Magnuson, 2012). Prima facie, one’s employment may be
as with dominance, prestige-related antecedents (e.g., associated with one’s income level but also with prestige
competence, warmth, morality) may not necessarily indi- (Fujishiro, Xu, & Gong, 2010; Touhey, 1974; Treiman,
cate overall status but merely the target’s status level (i.e., 1977) and perceived competence (Fiske et al., 2007;
rank) along a given dimension. Taken together with other Fiske et al., 2002; Imhoff, Woelki, Hanke, & Dotsch,
status dimensions (e.g., financial wealth) and social con- 2013). Education is the dimension of SES thought to best
texts conveying the relative importance of each dimen- capture the degree of cognitive stimulation in the home
sion (e.g., religious community vs. athletic team), these environment (Evans & English, 2002; Evans, Gonnella,
dimensions contribute to an individual’s overall perceived Marcynyszyn, Gentile, & Salpekar, 2005) with important
status level. Thus, although prestige is sometimes equated consequences for social status advancement (Breen &
with overall status, or as a particular kind of status (e.g., Jonsson, 2005; Fiske & Markus, 2012; Lareau & Conley,
Halevy et al., 2012; von Rueden et al., 2011), it may be 2008) and well-being (Curhan et al., 2014; Herzog,
important to consider prestige (and dominance) as Franks, Markus, & Holmberg, 1998; Ross & Van Willigen,
potential contributing dimensions to overall social status 1997).
rather than as indicative of social status per se. As dis- As with other status dimensions covered in this review,
cussed above, this example underscores the importance it is important to note that the separate dimensions com-
of considering all components of status and their interac- prising SES often reflect discrete past experiences and
tions when investigating the consequences of social sta- often may not be interchangeably used as proxies for one
tus for person perception and evaluation. another (Brito & Noble, 2014; Duncan & Magnuson,
In summary, prestige can be conceptualized as a status 2012) or as necessarily correlating with financial status.
dimension but also as one pathway to the acquisition of One solution may be to use composite measures of SES,
social status in humans (Cheng & Tracy, 2014; Henrich & including a combination of two or more socioeconomic
Gil-White, 2001). Individuals adopting a prestige-based dimensions (see Cloutier, Cardenas-Iniquez, et al., 2016,
strategy of status acquisition rely on knowledge or visible for a review). However, examining hierarchies separately
displays of socially valued competencies and social con- for each dimension may provide a more fine-grained
sensus rather than intimidation (Case & Maner, 2014; Van understanding of the antecedents and consequences of
Vugt, 2006; Van Vugt et al., 2008). As in the preceding SES (e.g., Fujishiro et al., 2010).
discussion of dominance, it is important to consider
prestige-related status antecedents as conveying status Wealth and education as pathways. Although they
along some of many possible social dimensions that con- reflect discrete life experiences, income, occupation, and
tribute to one’s overall perceived status. The degree to education do tend to correlate with one another and to
which prestige-related antecedents influence perceived predict status advancement (Fiske & Markus, 2012; Lareau
status likely depends on the salience of other status & Conley, 2008). For example, the degree of educational
dimensions (e.g., wealth) and the social context in ques- attainment (e.g., years in school) has been linked to
tion. Importantly, such context sensitivity in status-based greater socioeconomic mobility (Breen & Jonsson, 2005)
inference remains to be empirically explored. and greater perceived self-efficacy (Snibbe & Markus,
2005). It has also been shown that a lack of resources
Wealth and education. In the previous two sections, and personal support in early childhood can limit aca-
we reviewed social status dimensions inspired by two demic success, ultimately reinforcing socioeconomic
central pathways to status acquisition in humans: domi- inequality (Entwisle, Alexander, & Olson, 2005). In con-
nance and prestige (Cheng & Tracy, 2014; Cheng et al., trast to work on dominance and prestige, these studies
2013). However, we suggest that facets of socioeconomic rely primarily on longitudinal and correlational designs.
status (SES), traditionally considered central to human Although this work reinforces the notion that wealth and
social status, can also be considered both as pathways to education may be important pathways to the acquisition
476 Mattan et al.

of status on a range of dimensions including competence hierarchies. For example, social categories like race and
and prestige, more work is needed to determine how gender, which are easily identifiable from unknown indi-
SES-related cues impact person perception and evalua- viduals, have been suggested to be important anteced-
tion in different contexts. We now turn to possible cues ents of overall social status inference (Berger, Cohen, &
that may convey SES, thereby serving as wealth-based Zelditch, 1972; Penner & Saperstein, 2008; Saperstein,
antecedents of social status. Penner, & Light, 2013). Similarly, attractiveness (arguably
a status dimension based on physical appearance) is sug-
Wealth-related status antecedents. Although the vari- gested to facilitate status acquisition, especially in indi-
ous dimensions of SES (i.e., financial and educational viduals from lower SES backgrounds (Bauldry et al.,
status) are often not accessible at first glance, SES may 2016). More work is needed to map the fundamental
be inferred from a number of visually accessible ante- dimensions of status and the pathways to status acquisi-
cedent cues, including clothing (Freeman et al., 2011; tion across these dimensions in humans. We revisit these
Kraus & Mendes, 2014; Nelissen & Meijers, 2011; Ratcliff, questions when discussing future directions in the final
Hugenberg, Shriver, & Bernstein, 2011), car ownership section of this review.
(Dunn & Searle, 2010; Piff, Stancato, Côté, Mendoza-
Denton, & Keltner, 2012), nonverbal signs of aloofness Consequences of Perceived Status
(Kraus & Keltner, 2009), and stereotypic environments
in Attention
(e.g., luxury vs. standard apartments: Dunn & Hill, 2014;
see also Shriver, Young, Hugenberg, Bernstein, & Lanter, Having outlined some of the many social dimensions on
2008). Although these cues most directly confer some which status may be construed, we now consider the con-
form of financial status, other cues such as eyeglasses sequences of perceived status. In this section, we consider
(e.g., Hellström & Tekle, 1994) or personal descrip- evidence from the behavioral and neuroimaging litera-
tions (e.g., Cloutier, Ambady, Meagher, & Gabrieli, 2012; tures relevant to status differentiation processes and the
Dalmaso, Pavan, Castelli, & Galfano, 2011) may convey attentional consequences of perceiving targets varying in
greater educational, occupational, or intellectual status. status dimensions and levels. Guided by the reviewed lit-
erature, we focus on the attentional consequences of sta-
tus inferred from frequently studied social dimensions
Summary while highlighting the importance of considering other
Inspired in part by an extensive literature suggesting status dimensions in future research. In doing so, we
multiple pathways to status acquisition in humans, the attempt to illustrate that status-based attention is more
research reviewed in this section suggests there are also complex than commonly thought, dependent on both the
multiple antecedents by which humans infer the status of status dimension and social context in question.
others. Like our nonhuman primate relatives, we are able
to discern the relative status of individuals based on cues Behavioral evidence of status
conveying physical or social dominance. However, the differentiation and status-based
use of relatively more affiliation-related status dimen-
sions may be unique (and more important) to human
attention
social status due to our greater reliance on social learning Initial research on status-based attention allocation sug-
and knowledge-based status antecedents. We note here gests that high-dominance individuals garner greater
that dimensions of social status (e.g., dominance and attention than low-dominance individuals. Indeed, such
wealth) are frequently studied in parallel and in limited tendency has been observed in nonhuman primates
contexts. However, the relative importance of a given (Chance, 1967; Dalmaso et al., 2011; Deaner, Khera, &
social dimension will most likely depend on the context, Platt, 2005; Fiske, 2010; Shepherd, Deaner, & Platt, 2006).
and the manner and degree to which social dimensions Similarly, human perceivers are thought to pay greater
interact to convey status is seldom investigated. Further- attention to dominant or otherwise high-status targets
more, social dimensions that are not typically and explic- (Cheng et al., 2013; Dalmaso et al., 2011; Foulsham,
itly associated with social status may nonetheless be Cheng, Tracy, Henrich, & Kingstone, 2010), especially if
central to the relative status level within certain social they are male (DeWall & Maner, 2008; Fiske, 1993; Maner
hierarchies. For example, in some cases, moral standing et al., 2008). In preschoolers, dominant individuals
is necessary to maintain high status, and individuals appear to receive relatively greater visual attention (i.e.,
believed to be immoral are assigned lower status (Boehm, greater frequency of eye gazes: Abramovich, 1976; Hold,
2012; Fiske, 2010; Hamlin & Wynn, 2011; Hamlin, Wynn, 1976; La Freniere & Charlesworth, 1983). Such height-
& Bloom, 2010). Finally, the present section does not pre- ened attention may be due to the possible greater conse-
sume to discuss all status dimensions relevant to human quences of engaging with individuals in powerful
Social Status and Person Perception 477

positions (Ames & Fiske, 2013; Cheng & Tracy, 2014; Some have speculated that attention to high-status
Fiske, 2010; Haaker et al., 2016). In support of this interpre- individuals may stem from their greater control over
tation, fear conditioning (measured by skin-conductance intellectual, material, and/or social resources (Galinsky,
recordings) has been found to be stronger during acqui- Rucker, & Magee, 2015; Magee & Galinsky, 2008), which
sition, more resistant to extinction, and more readily rein- may, in turn, increase the perceived motivational rele-
stated for high- versus low-dominance targets (Haaker vance of high-status people (e.g., Breton et al., 2014; Dal-
et al., 2016). However, as previously discussed, perceived maso et al., 2011). Although some work suggests that
dominance is but one among many potential determi- control over resources heightens a perceiver’s attention to
nants of social status, and one should be careful when goal-relevant stimuli (Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson,
generalizing these findings to social status more broadly. 2003; Overbeck & Park, 2001, 2006), it is less clear
Other possible dimensions of status (e.g., competence, whether the aforementioned attentional biases to high-
wealth, morality) may shape attention differently, depend- status targets are driven by the high-status target’s per-
ing on the dimension’s relative importance in a given ceived control over resources or some other dimension of
context. Accordingly, in a year-long study of preschool social status (e.g., prestige). Moreover, it is unclear
children, it was found that directed gazes from other chil- whether high status along any dimension is sufficient to
dren during play time were more strongly associated with draw attention or whether this may be restricted to cer-
the pupil’s degree of social competence (i.e., prestige) tain status dimensions in relevant contexts.
than with his physical dominance ranking (Vaughn & As discussed, hierarchical rank along some dimen-
Waters, 1981; but see La Freniere & Charlesworth, 1983). sions may elicit increased attentional bias to high-status
Using eye-tracking, Foulsham and colleagues (2010) individuals. However, this may not always be the case.
presented passive observers with 20-s video clips depict- For instance, token minorities are thought to receive dis-
ing three individuals involved in a group decision-making proportionately greater attention, despite their stereotypi-
task. Importantly, each individual in the recorded decision- cally lower status (Kanter, 1977). Low-status individuals
making group subsequently rated each other on general may also attract more attention if they are construed as
status and influence that resulted in his or her classifica- threatening, either contextually or stereotypically. Threat
tion as low, medium, or high status. Results of this study has long been known to capture and hold our attention
revealed that passive observers (i.e., study participants) (Fox, Russo, Bowles, & Dutton, 2001; Fox, Russo, & Dutton,
attended more to the eyes of high-status when compared 2002; Koster, Crombez, Van Damme, Verschuere, & De
to low-status members of the decision-making group, Houwer, 2004). One instance where low-status individu-
and visual attention positively correlated with prerated als may be seen as threatening is in unstable hierarchies
dominance and prestige of the recorded individuals (see (Case & Maner, 2014; Maner & Mead, 2010; Mead &
also Cheng et al., 2013, Study 2). Similar attentional biases Maner, 2012a; Sapolsky, 2005; Tajfel & Turner, 1979).
have been shown in a gaze-following task. After review- Indeed, individuals are generally highly motivated to
ing a set of faces, each associated with a fictitious CV, maintain or enhance their status rank when opportunities
participants tended to preferentially follow the gaze of arise (Hays & Bendersky, 2015; Maner, Gailliot, Butz, &
individuals paired with high- versus low-SES occupations Peruche, 2007; Sapolsky, 2004). When status hierarchies
during a gaze cueing task (Dalmaso et al., 2011). Similar allow for upward mobility, low-status individuals are
gaze-cueing bias has been observed for masculinized thought to become more competitive (Hays & Bendersky,
(i.e., high in perceived dominance: Perrett et al., 1998) 2015). Perhaps as a consequence, low-status targets
compared to feminized (i.e., low in perceived domi- receive greater attention from relatively high-status per-
nance) faces (B. C. Jones et al., 2010), for leaders versus ceivers in unstable hierarchies who may feel their posi-
followers (Capozzi, Becchio, Willemse, & Bayliss, 2016), tion in the hierarchy is threatened (e.g., Case & Maner,
and for politicians perceived to have relatively greater 2014; Mead & Maner, 2012a; Wilkins & Kaiser, 2014).
influence within their coalitions (Liuzza et al., 2016). Beyond the context of hierarchy instability, stereotypes
Taken together, this work suggests that individuals may also lead to associations of threat with low-status
ranking highly along a number of dimensions (e.g., SES, targets (e.g., Correll, Wittenbrink, Park, Judd, & Goyle,
prestige, dominance) may readily grab our attention. Fur- 2011). Additionally, especially in the absence of an
thermore, possibly as a result of greater attention alloca- explicit relationship between status and power, low-
tion, the identities and physical locations (e.g., after a status individuals may be viewed as fellow members of
brief presentation of a 4 × 4 array of faces) of high-SES the same social class by the majority of perceivers who
faces have also been shown to be better remembered are also of low or middling social rank and, therefore,
(Ratcliff et al., 2011; Shriver et al., 2008). Thus, research- preferentially hold perceivers’ attention (Fiske, 2010).
ers have posited that not only are high-status individuals Direct examination of how threat and power indepen-
more readily attended, they are also more deeply encoded dently modulate attention to social status awaits further
and better remembered. study.
478 Mattan et al.

As a final caveat to the influence of social status on 2006). Even in areas characterized by limited theoretical
attention, innovative work using mobile eye-tracking development, neuroimaging findings can contribute to
suggests that attention to eyes and gaze direction in “real theoretical refinement through the judicious use of prob-
life” may not always converge with patterns observed in abilistic reverse inference (Moran & Zaki, 2013; Poldrack,
standard lab-based procedures that frequently rely on 2006). In the following sections, we review research on
video or pictorial stimuli (Kuhn, Teszka, Tenaw, & social status from the functional magnetic resonance
Kingstone, 2016; Risko, Laidlaw, Freeth, Foulsham, & imaging (fMRI) and, to a lesser extent, event-related brain
Kingstone, 2012). For instance, perceivers may not look potentials (ERPs) literatures. As in the behavioral litera-
at nearby individuals in the eye in the same way they ture reviewed in the preceding section, we will review
would while watching a video or viewing a picture. the neuroimaging literature in the context of our pro-
Indeed, in live dyadic interactions, low-status human and posed theoretical framework with an emphasis on the
nonhuman primates frequently avert their gaze from progress afforded by adopting a social neuroscience
high-status conspecifics (Deaner et al., 2005; Exline, Elly- approach to investigate how social status impacts person
son, & Long, 1975; Shepherd et al., 2006). Further work perception and evaluation.
is needed to clarify how different status dimensions affect fMRI measures blood flow changes within regions of
attention allocation in ecologically valid scenarios and to the brain. These changes in blood flow are thought to
determine how such attention translates into differences reflect an increased demand for oxygenated blood in
in memory. populations of active neurons responding to psychologi-
In summary, current research indicates that high-status cal stimuli of interest to the experimenter (Heeger &
targets typically receive the greatest attention. However, Ress, 2002; Logothetis, 2008). Building on previous brain-
in some scenarios, low-status individuals prompt greater imaging research, the use of this method helps research-
attention (e.g., token status, hierarchy instability, physical ers interested in social status to uncover the mechanisms
threat, or shared group membership). Ultimately, early by which social status impacts person perception and
attentional allocation may also lead to further down- evaluation, and it provides anatomical mapping of these
stream consequences, such as improved memory (Ratcliff mechanisms with higher spatial resolution than other
et al., 2011; Shriver et al., 2008) and increased individua- available techniques. It is important to note, however,
tion (Ames & Fiske, 2013; Muscatell et al., 2012) for high- that fMRI studies are correlational in nature. Due in part
status targets. More research is needed to explore the to the low temporal precision of fMRI, it is often unclear
consequences of status-based attention, to better under- whether activity in certain brain regions is integral to the
stand the conditions that shape attention and memory to perception of perceived status antecedents or if it is
low-status targets, and to identify the ways in which dif- merely a consequence of status-related activity in other
ferent status dimensions and their corresponding ante- cortical regions (see section on limitations for further
cedents contribute to status-based attention. discussion).
ERPs measure electrical changes in the brain over time.
Neuroimaging evidence of status More specifically, ERPs represent the synchronous and
differentiation and status-based summated postsynaptic firing of neurons acquired at the
surface of the scalp. ERPs provide millisecond-based tem-
attention poral sensitivity not possible with fMRI. Therefore, ERP is
The increasing use of neuroimaging methods in the study well suited for mapping the time course of status-based
of social cognition has provided several advantages, attention (for a review of ERP and person perception, see
including the ability to assess ongoing psychological pro- Kubota & Ito, 2009). However, due to the poor spatial
cesses without the intrusive questions and socially desir- precision of ERPs, the anatomical origins of ERPs are not
able responding typical of self-report methods (Amodio, always clear (but see Becker et al., 2014; Song et al., 2015,
2010; Berkman & Cunningham, 2012; Cacioppo, Berntson, for recent advances in EEG source localization).
Sheridan, & McClintock, 2000; Cacioppo, Tassinary, &
Berntson, 2007; Lieberman, 2007; Stanley & Adolphs, Differentiation and attention to perceptual ante-
2013). Moreover, neuroimaging methods offer sensitivity cedents of status.  Perhaps because dominance can be
to the engagement of distinct psychological processes easily inferred from visual stimuli, the neuroimaging lit-
that underlie otherwise similar behavioral performance erature investigating how social status shapes person
(Amodio, 2010; Berkman & Cunningham, 2012; Cacioppo perception often focuses on this dimension. These fMRI
et al., 2000; Cacioppo et al., 2007; Lieberman, 2007; Stanley studies typically rely on perceptual antecedents of domi-
& Adolphs, 2013). More generally, in areas of research nance such as facial structure/expression (Chiao et al.,
organized around competing theories, it is possible to develop 2008; Haaker et al., 2016) or body posture/position
neuroimaging experiments distinguishing theoretical (Freeman et al., 2009; Marsh et al., 2009; Mason, Magee,
alternatives (Amodio, 2010; Todorov, Harris, & Fiske, & Fiske, 2014). In one fMRI experiment, Marsh and
Social Status and Person Perception 479

colleagues (2009) presented to perceivers photographs this region may be particularly sensitive to dominance
of actors varying their gaze orientations, body postures, antecedents or competition rather than status per se. Fur-
and gestures to convey overall low, average, or high ther work is needed to determine the conditions in which
dominance. Greater activity in the lateral prefrontal cor- these regions of the lateral prefrontal cortex are respon-
tex was observed in response to individuals displaying sive to other dimensions of social status beyond the con-
high-dominance cues, relative to neutral and low- text of dominance and competition.
dominance cues. In another study, perceivers reporting Together with the lateral prefrontal cortex, regions of
greater dispositional motivation to obtain power showed the inferior parietal cortex (e.g., inferior parietal lobule
increased lateral prefrontal activity while viewing video [IPL], intraparietal sulcus [IPS]) may also be associated
clips of social interactions with power- or dominance- with attention to dominant individuals (Freeman et al.,
related themes (Quirin et al., 2013). Notably, lateral pre- 2009) as part of the greater frontoparietal attentional net-
frontal activity in both studies included the dorsolateral work (Corbetta et al., 2008; Corbetta & Shulman, 2002).
prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) and ventrolateral prefrontal Particularly relevant to the study of status broadly con-
cortex (VLPFC). DLPFC activity associated with dominant strued, the inferior parietal cortex is believed to register
targets has been suggested to index increased top-down status differences along diverse social dimensions (Chiao
attention (Marsh et al., 2009). Consistent with this view, et al., 2009; Cloutier et al., 2012). BOLD activity in the
subsequent work found greater DLPFC activity in the inferior parietal cortex may also differentiate between
context of a conflict between two individuals of close (vs. different dimensions of social status during self-referential
distant) dominance levels (see Haaker et al., 2016, Exper- comparisons, possibly as a function of each dimension’s
iment 3). The DLPFC’s putative role in mediating top- relative importance to the self (Cloutier et al., 2012;
down attention to dominance is in line with previous Cloutier & Gyurovski, 2013). Indeed, some have sug-
work implicating this region in active attentional control gested that this region may index attention to those most
(Corbetta, Patel, & Shulman, 2008; Corbetta & Shulman, similar to the self during social comparison (Swencionis
2002). In contrast, VLPFC activity associated with domi- & Fiske, 2014). Other work has found that the inferior
nant targets may index context-appropriate changes in parietal cortex is preferentially recruited when witnessing
behavior following status differentiation (Marsh et al., exemplary moral acts (Englander, Haidt, & Morris, 2012),
2009). For example, the presence of a more dominant or suggesting that this region may also be implicated in
otherwise high-status individual may necessitate a greater attention to status-enhancing actions. Nonetheless, these
need to regulate one’s behavior, inhibiting inappropriate possibilities have not been directly tested and await fur-
actions. This interpretation is consistent with research ther research.
implicating the VLPFC in the inhibition of erroneous As mentioned at the beginning of this section, fMRI
responses (Aron, Robbins, & Poldrack, 2004; Cools, Clark, research on dominance relies heavily on visual cues such
Owen, & Robbins, 2002; Elliott, Friston, & Dolan, 2000; as body posture and facial expression. However, previous
Levy & Wagner, 2011). In sum, the DLPFC and VLPFC work from the social psychological literature suggests a
may act in concert to support preparation for competi- number of visually accessible social categories that also
tion with dominant or potentially dominant individuals. influence perceived dominance, including age (Hehman
Providing additional support, single-cell recording from et al., 2014; Karafin, Tranel, & Adolphs, 2004; Montepare &
the lateral prefrontal cortex (i.e., dorsal and ventral banks Zebrowitz, 1998), gender (Karafin et al., 2004; Marsh et al.,
of the principal sulcus) in macaques revealed more sen- 2009), and race (Hess, Blairy, & Kleck, 2000; Navarrete,
sitivity to conspecific than computer opponents during McDonald, Molina, & Sidanius, 2010). At present, it is
competitive game play (Hosokawa & Watanabe, 2012). unclear the extent to which neural responses to others
Collectively, the above findings imply that areas of the may be sensitive to the interaction between the above
lateral prefrontal cortex are responsive to perceptual social dimensions and features conveying facial domi-
cues of dominance displayed by targets, perhaps espe- nance, such as eye gaze (Mignault & Chaudhuri, 2003;
cially in competitive contexts. Specifically, the DLPFC is Terburg, Hooiveld, Aarts, Kenemans, & van Honk, 2011;
thought to support controlled attention to dominant tar- but see Richeson, Todd, Trawalter, & Baird, 2008) and
gets, whereas the VLPFC is thought to inhibit inappropri- facial width-to-height ratio (Carré & McCormick, 2008;
ate responses in the presence of a dominant target. We Carré et al., 2009; Hehman et al., 2014). To better under-
nonetheless caution that the causal role of these regions stand the relationship between perceived dominance and
has yet to be determined. Importantly, activity in the status-based attention, future work will also need to exam-
VLPFC is not consistently observed in fMRI studies using ine the interaction between dominance-related visual
status dimensions other than dominance (cf. Chiao, antecedents and perceived status level along various social
Harada, Oby, Li, Parrish, & Bridge, 2009; Cloutier et al., dimensions (e.g., prestige, wealth: Cheng & Tracy, 2013).
2012; Cloutier & Gyurovski, 2013; Farrow et al., 2011; In summary, a number of fMRI studies have explored
Zink, Tong, Chen, Bassett, & Stein, 2008), implying that brain responses to perceptual antecedents conveying
480 Mattan et al.

physical or social dominance (Chiao et al., 2008; Free- responded to high- versus low-status players. These regions
man et al., 2009; Haaker et al., 2016; Marsh et al., 2009; are frequently implicated in attention or salience (Corbetta
Quirin et al., 2013). Results from these studies suggest a et al., 2008; Corbetta & Shulman, 2002; Zink, Pagnoni,
network of brain areas responsive to social dominance Chappelow, Martin-Skurski, & Berns, 2006). Taken together,
that includes prefrontal regions (viz., VLPFC, DLPFC) and these results are consistent with behavioral findings imply-
the inferior parietal cortex. Notably, some of these regions ing that high-status individuals may be more readily identi-
have also been found to differentiate individuals based fied and attended (Dalmaso et al., 2011; DeWall & Maner,
on social status along dimensions not explicitly tied to 2008; Fiske, 2010; Foulsham et al., 2010; B. C. Jones et al.,
dominance (Cloutier & Gyurovski, 2013, 2014; Farrow 2010; Liuzza et al., 2016; Maner et al., 2008; Ratcliff et al.,
et al., 2011; Zink et al., 2008). In addition to the regions 2011; Shriver et al., 2008).
discussed above, other regions including the ventral As mentioned in the preceding section, regions within
medial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC), amygdala, and occipi- the inferior parietal cortex are thought to differentiate the
totemporal regions (viz., middle/superior temporal and status of others along a number of dimensions (Chiao,
lingual gyri) have shown sensitivity to visual antecedents 2010; Chiao et al., 2009; Cloutier et al., 2012; Cloutier &
of dominance (e.g., Marsh et al., 2009). Due to a lack of Gyurovski, 2013; Parkinson, Liu, & Wheatley, 2014;
convergence across studies, it is unclear whether these Yamakawa, Kanai, Matsumura, & Naito, 2009). Originally
regions are responsive to the differentiation of and atten- posited to support the representation of numerical mag-
tion to dominance or some other aspect of the experi- nitudes (Dehaene, Piazza, Pinel, & Cohen, 2003; Pinel,
mental paradigm. In the case of the VMPFC, damage to Dehaene, Rivière, & LeBihan, 2001; Pinel, Piazza, Le
this area does not appear to affect the ability to differenti- Bihan, & Dehaene, 2004; Shuman & Kanwisher, 2004),
ate dominance levels, but it may affect the normal use of subsequent work has implicated the IPS in comparisons
social categories such as age and gender during judg- of both numbers and social status levels (Chiao, 2010;
ments of dominance (Karafin et al., 2004). We revisit the Chiao et al., 2009). Chiao and colleagues (2009) observed
role of this region when reviewing the neuroimaging evi- greater IPS activity for small versus large number/status
dence for status-based evaluation (see below). Finally, differences. Another study comparing physical distance
the precise relationship between the involvement of all (e.g., Which object is closer to you?) and social distance
aforementioned regions in the initial perception of domi- (e.g., Which face would you prefer as an interaction part-
nance and its downstream consequences requires further ner?) found overlapping activity in bilateral superior pari-
investigation. etal lobule (SPL) during both kinds of distance judgment
(Yamakawa et al., 2009). A more recent study adopting a
Differentiation and attention to knowledge-based multivariate pattern analysis approach and looking at an
antecedents of status. Although the neural correlates even wider range of distance computations (viz., physi-
of perceptual antecedents of dominance have received cal, social, and temporal) found that distributed patterns
considerable attention, relatively few fMRI studies have of local activity in the right IPL (i.e., angular and supra-
directly examined the neural response to alternative sta- marginal gyri) predicted subjective distance judgments
tus dimensions. This is perhaps due to the fact that many (e.g., nearer vs. farther) across all domains (Parkinson
dimensions like prestige or wealth are not always per- et al., 2014). Taken together, these findings suggest that
ceptually accessible but rather depend on the availability hierarchy differentiation may be supported by a relatively
and recall of person knowledge. One fMRI study by Zink more domain-general neural mechanism for distance
and colleagues (2008) assigned status to participants and computation in regions of the parietal cortex surrounding
virtual confederate players based on task competence. the IPS.
Rather than dominance, social status was conveyed by Although the studies above focused on explicit status
skill level (e.g., one star for low-skill status vs. three stars comparisons, others have found that the parietal cortex is
for high-skill status) of fictitious players (depicted via a also sensitive to perceived social status when no explicit
photograph) in an incentivized but noncompetitive game. comparisons of status are required (Cloutier et al., 2012;
Results revealed greater activity in the right inferior Zink et al., 2008). These findings suggest that IPS activity
parietal cortex (extending to occipital regions) as partici- may be indexing spontaneous status-based comparisons
pants viewed higher relative to lower status players. As dis- relative to the perceiver’s own status (Cloutier & Gyurovski,
cussed in the previous section, this region has been 2013; Swencionis & Fiske, 2014). In line with this possibil-
implicated in attention to dominant individuals (Freeman ity, the visuospatial literature suggests that egocentric rep-
et al., 2009) and to the differentiation of status more broadly resentations of object positions relative to the self are
(Chiao et  al., 2009; Cloutier et  al., 2012; Cloutier & associated with a nearby area of parietal cortex, the SPL
Gyurovski, 2013). In addition to the inferior parietal cortex, (Naito et al., 2008; Neggers, Van der Lubbe, Ramsey, &
the bilateral DLPFC and ventral striatum also preferentially Postma, 2006).3
Social Status and Person Perception 481

In sum, the above findings suggest that the tendency brain areas implicated in the general differentiation of sta-
to spontaneously register the status of others within a tus and social distance (parietal cortex: IPS, IPL, SPL), atten-
given social hierarchy may be a fundamental component tional engagement (DLPFC), and social salience (MPFC,
of navigating one’s milieu. This process appears to be amygdala, ventral striatum). Notably, many of these regions
supported by parietal regions centering on the IPS, a have also been implicated in differentiation of and atten-
region implicated in domain-general computations of tion to dominance, with the parietal cortex and DLPFC
numerical, physical, temporal, and social distance. responding most consistently to dominance. As previously
Although the research reviewed here is promising, future mentioned, the IPS is thought to index social status differ-
work using larger samples to parametrically manipulate entiation (Chiao et al., 2009; Cloutier et al., 2012; Farrow
the relationship between the status (i.e., distance) of per- et al., 2011), whereas the DLPFC has been implicated in
ceivers and targets is needed to confirm this hypothesis. top-down attention to socially salient stimuli (Corbetta
As discussed in our review of the nonhuman primate et al., 2008; Corbetta & Shulman, 2002; Zink et al., 2006).
(see the online supplemental material) and human Other regions appear with less consistency across status
behavioral literatures, the way social status is attended dimensions (including the MPFC, amygdala, and ventral
may also depend on the nature of social hierarchical striatum), insinuating that activity in these regions may
structures (Case & Maner, 2014; Hays & Bendersky, 2015; depend on the status dimension presented or on task par-
Maner et al., 2007; Sapolsky, 2004; Sapolsky & Share, ticularities. Finally, other regions in the occipitotemporal
2004). In a pair of fMRI experiments exploring the cortex (viz., fusiform, STG/STS, lingual gyrus) have also
hypothesis that hierarchy stability may shape neural been responsive to different knowledge-based antecedents
responses (Zink et al., 2008), participants played a simple of social status (e.g., Cloutier & Gyurovski, 2013; Zink et al.,
perceptual judgment game with other players varying in 2008). These regions may be involved in the perception of
status (i.e., skill) level. The first experiment was charac- faces, commonly used as stimuli in existing work. How-
terized by a stable hierarchy. In the stable hierarchy con- ever, the precise role of these regions requires further study.
text, participants always remained at the intermediate As with dominance, it will be helpful for future work
status level. The second experiment was characterized by to uncover the precise relationship between the above
an unstable hierarchy. In the unstable hierarchy context, regions and the processes supporting the perception,
participants’ status levels were updated based on bogus integration, and attention to status antecedents along
task feedback. Results showed that, in both stable and multiple social dimensions varying in contextual impor-
unstable hierarchies, high-status others elicited greater tance. Given its presumed role in differentiating social
activity in a number of brain regions (inferior parietal distances and status, the IPS may be sensitive to relative
cortex, DLPFC, ventral striatum) than did low-status oth- status differences rather than the importance of one sta-
ers. However, additional regions were preferentially tus dimension (e.g., financial status) over another (e.g.,
recruited in the unstable hierarchy context. Specifically, intellectual status). However, the evaluative consequences
the amygdala and the MPFC (regions implicated in social of considering information from multiple status dimen-
salience and emotion processing) were preferentially sions may be integrated by other regions, such as the
responsive when viewing high-status versus low-status VMPFC, amygdala, and ventral striatum (see the section
players in an unstable hierarchy. This pattern of activity below on status-based evaluation for further discussion
was observed despite status level being conferred based of these regions). Using functional connectivity analyses
on bogus performance feedback on a task that was not to explore the relationship between these regions, one
diagnostic of actual ability. These findings highlight that study on dominance (Marsh et al., 2009) found positive
individuals may be more likely to experience heightened functional connectivity between the VMPFC and superior
attention and emotional arousal stemming, for example, temporal sulcus (STS) with the VLPFC. Although still
from perceived threats to their relative rank (Cheney & speculative, one possibility is that the VLPFC inhibits
Seyfarth, 2008; Cloutier, Norman, Li, & Berntson, 2013; inappropriate behaviors that may be especially costly in
Fiske, 2010; Sapolsky, 2005). However, it is notable that the presence of a dominant target. This possibility is con-
increased attention to dominant or threatening others sistent with previous work highlighting the role of the
may not necessarily translate into learning and memory VLPFC in response inhibition (Aron et al., 2004; Cools
(Haaker et al., 2016). et al., 2002; Elliott et al., 2000; Levy & Wagner, 2011).
In summary, a small but growing number of fMRI stud- Further work is needed to replicate and extend (e.g., to
ies have explored the neural differentiation of and attention other status dimensions) these intriguing yet tentative ini-
to others varying in status as inferred from person knowl- tial findings.
edge (Chiao et al., 2009; Cloutier et al., 2012; Cloutier &
Gyurovski, 2013; Farrow et al., 2011; Zink et al., 2008). Time course of status-based differentiation and
Results from these studies suggest an extensive network of attention.  Although the preceding sections suggest that
482 Mattan et al.

some headway is being made in delineating the anatomi- needed to determine the reliability of effects at this time
cal correlates of perceived social status, there has been window and the relevancy of these components to social
comparatively little research on the time course of status- status perception and evaluation.
based differentiation and attention. Although not the In summary, the present ERP literature on the differen-
focus of this review, a number of studies have used ERP tiation of social status in others and its downstream con-
to explore the effects of perceiver SES on social-cognitive sequences is relatively limited compared to the fMRI
functioning (for a review, see Varnum, 2016). Extant ERP literature. Due to the small number of studies, each rely-
work on perceived SES has focused primarily on hierar- ing on different experimental designs and operationaliza-
chies structured by competition (Breton et al., 2014; tions of status, definitive comparisons and integration
Santamaría-García, Burgaleta, & Sebastián-Gallés, 2015) across studies are still premature. As with fMRI studies,
or dominance (Chiao et al., 2008). In the present section, more careful consideration of the experimental context is
we review some of these findings and consider directions needed when comparing across existing studies and in
for further research. the development of future research (e.g., How is status
Findings from the ERP literature indicate that differen- being presented and processed by participants?). Future
tiation of hierarchical rank may be observed as early as work may build on existing findings by considering the
150–220 ms, with higher status faces eliciting larger N170/ time course involved in the perception of targets varying
N200 components (Chiao et al., 2008; Pineda, Sebestyen, in other dimensions of social status beyond competition-
& Nava, 1994; Santamaría-García et al., 2015). The N170 related contexts and the possible interaction between
is thought to be responsive to the extent of identity- such dimensions. Relatively few ERP studies have
related processing in faces (Eimer, 2011). However, some assessed how varying status antecedents shape the time
have questioned the reliability of status-based differentia- course of attention (or evaluation). For example, a direct
tion at the N170, positing previous findings (e.g., Chiao comparison of status-based differentiation and attention
et al., 2008) may have confounded status with gaze and as a function of perceptual (Chiao et al., 2008) versus
head orientation (cf. Breton et al., 2014). Attempting to knowledge-based (Breton et al., 2014) antecedents may
address this critique, a subsequent study by Santamaría- prove useful to interpret findings from previous and
García and colleagues (2015) presented participants with future work. Additionally, an integration of ERP work on
a photograph (i.e., a face with direct gaze and neutral perceiver status (for a review, see Varnum, 2016) and
expression) and status-level information (i.e., one to perceived status in others (reviewed here and in the sec-
three stars) of an individual immediately prior to compet- tion below on the time course of status-based evalua-
ing against that person in a perceptual judgment trial. tions) represents a promising new horizon in research on
Results showed larger N170s in response to higher ranked the time course of social status perception (e.g., as a
competitors, providing initial evidence that ascribed sta- dyadic phenomenon: see Bergsieker, Shelton, & Richeson,
tus levels may affect early stages of face processing. 2010). Although the ERP literature on social status per-
Future work should determine the N170’s generalizability ception is presently limited, we are optimistic that the
to other status dimensions outside of competitive con- coming years will bring greater consensus in our under-
texts in which identity processing may prove more standing of the time course of status-based perception
advantageous (e.g., moral status). and attention.
On the whole, research into the effects of status on
early ERPs is still in its infancy. Two other early ERP com-
Summary
ponents, the P200 and N200, have been implicated in
impression formation. These components may prove In this section, we considered behavioral and neuroimag-
especially relevant to understanding the relationship ing evidence for status-based differentiation and its pos-
between status dimensions and antecedents, on the one sible consequences for social attention. Findings from the
hand, and attention and threat processing, on the other. behavioral literature suggest that high-status individuals
For example, greater P200 amplitudes have been shown along a number of status dimensions (e.g., dominance,
to relate to vigilance processing of threatening and dis- prestige, SES) frequently capture our attention and are
tinctive stimuli (Carretié, Martín-Loeches, Hinojosa, & better remembered. Nonetheless, in some contexts, low-
Mercado, 2001; Eimer, Holmes, & McGlone, 2003; Halgren status individuals may capture a larger share of attention,
& Marinkovic, 1995; Ito & Bartholow, 2009; Kubota & Ito, such as during hierarchy instability, when greater social
2009; Schutter, de Haan, & van Honk, 2004). When view- status does not necessarily imply greater power, or when
ing faces, processing shifts at the N200 are thought to the perceiver’s own status (e.g., as a low-status person)
index greater selective attention to targets that one might becomes salient. The behavioral literature is comple-
benefit from processing more deeply, such as ingroup mented by growing fMRI and ERP literatures on social
members (Kubota & Ito, 2016). Additional research is status perception.
Social Status and Person Perception 483

Findings from fMRI implicate an extensive network of 1984) compared to less aggressive peers. However, as
regions associated with the differentiation of and atten- children mature, dominance defined in the classic sense
tion to social status. This network is comprised of regions of physical formidability appears to lose its appeal rela-
implicated in the general differentiation of status and tive to other dimensions of status such as social compe-
social distance (parietal cortex: IPS, IPL, SPL), attentional tence (Hawley, 1999). Although it may depend on the
control (DLPFC), and social salience (MPFC, amygdala, dimension conferring social status, the relationship
ventral striatum). As discussed in the following section, between high status and positive evaluations is often
we suggest that the VMPFC, amygdala, and the ventral assumed to persist into adulthood. Supporting this
striatum are also involved in status-based evaluation. assumption, individuals with higher status (typically
Given that these regions are inconsistently observed in operationalized in terms of dominance, power, or SES)
studies of status differentiation and status-based attention are perceived as more competent and valued compared
reviewed in the present section, it is possible that these to individuals with relatively lower status (C. Anderson &
regions influence attention in a value-dependent manner Kilduff, 2009a, 2009b; Fiske, 2010; Flynn et al., 2006;
(Marsh et al., 2009). When perceiving targets varying Varnum, 2013). Moreover, the fashion choices of high-
along the dominance dimension (vs. other dimensions of SES individuals are on average preferred over those of
status), regions tied to attentional control (DLPFC) and low-SES individuals (Galak, Gray, Elbert, & Strohminger,
inhibition (VLPFC) may be especially relevant. Finally, 2016). This positivity bias for high-status individuals and
other regions in the occipitotemporal cortex (viz., fusi- their choices extends to high-status groups or institutions
form, STG/STS, lingual gyrus) have been responsive to more generally (Fiske et al., 2016). In one study ( Jost &
different knowledge-based antecedents of social status Burgess, 2000, Study 1), university students from two dif-
(e.g., Cloutier & Gyurovski, 2013; Zink et al., 2008). The ferent institutions were assigned to low- and high-status
precise role of these regions requires further study. conditions through bogus reports of their institution’s
Although relatively more limited, the ERP literature typical graduate SES outcomes. In both conditions, par-
suggests that perceived social status may affect stages of ticipants rated individuals at the high-status institution
face processing as early as 170 ms post-stimulus onset. more favorably on a number of attributes conveying
For a review of how status may affect later stages of face competence (e.g., intelligence, work ethic, skill: cf.
processing, see the section below on the time course of Oldmeadow & Fiske, 2007; Varnum, 2013). Notably, par-
status-based evaluations. Future work may consider the ticipants whose institution was ascribed with lower status
anatomical correlates and time course of attending to nonetheless showed institutional favoritism when evalua-
individuals varying along multiple status dimensions tions were based on traits like friendliness, honesty, and
as a function of antecedent type (e.g., perceptual vs. social appeal (see also Mullen, Brown, & Smith, 1992).
knowledge-based) and context (e.g., competitive vs. Such attitudinal ambivalence among low-status individu-
noncompetitive). Having reviewed the attentional conse- als increases for individuals who believe the existing
quences of perceived status, we now turn to the conse- social class structure is legitimate (Ellemers, Wilke, & Van
quences of status in the evaluative domain. Knippenberg, 1993; Jost & Burgess, 2000; Jost & Hunyady,
2005).
Research on lay beliefs about social status (specifically,
Consequences of Perceived Status in
SES) provides some convergent evidence that high-status
Person Evaluation individuals are generally perceived to have positive attri-
Behavioral evidence of status-based butes. However, there is considerable variability in the
associations people make between various traits and SES
evaluation (Varnum, 2013). These popular conceptions of status (at
Generally, high-status individuals are believed to be more least in the U.S. context) are often not in line with more
positively evaluated than low-status individuals. This ten- objective data. In one study comparing lay beliefs to
dency has been observed from a young age (for a review, objective indices, lay beliefs about correlates of SES ran
see Koski, Xie, & Olson, 2015). Notably, the importance contrary to objective data on 9 out of 21 variables
of different social dimensions (e.g., dominance vs. pres- (Varnum, 2013). Variables in which popular opinion devi-
tige) in driving status-based evaluations appears to ated most strikingly from more objective indices included
change over the course of development. In very young honesty, conformity, and collectivism. Participants per-
children (preschoolers), aggressive peers are more often ceived these variables to be positively correlated with
imitated (Abramovitch & Grusec, 1978), judged as more SES despite these variables showing negative correlations
attractive (Hawley, Johnson, Mize, & McNamara, 2007), in the objective data. Moreover, lay beliefs failed to show
and preferred as playmates (Hawley, 2002; D. C. Jones, any reliable positive correlations between SES and
1984; La Freniere & Charlesworth, 1983; Strayer & Trudel, negative attributes (e.g., indifference). These perceived
484 Mattan et al.

correlations were relatively uniform across the wide in the way status is evaluated, with overly positive popu-
spectrum of SES levels sampled in that study, implying lar conceptions sometimes at odds with objective indices
some consensus that high-SES individuals possess more (Varnum, 2013). Moreover, the evaluation of status may
positive traits than they do in reality. often depend both on the status dimension and relative
In contrast to the above research suggesting that high importance of that dimension in a given context. Going
status is generally perceived in a positive light, other forward, it will be important to provide a clearer under-
work indicates that high status may sometimes carry a standing of how multiple status dimensions inform evalu-
negative rather than a positive association depending on ations of others, together with more perceptually available
the status dimension (Cloutier & Gyurovski, 2014; Fragale, social category information (e.g., race, age, gender: Fiske
Overbeck, & Neale, 2011). For instance, status conferred et al., 2016; Sanchez & Garcia, 2012).
by moral standing, suggested to be integral to the main-
tenance of human social hierarchies (Fiske, 2010; Rai & Neuroimaging evidence of
Fiske, 2011), typically elicits positive evaluations from
infancy (Hamlin & Wynn, 2011; Hamlin et al., 2010)
status-based evaluation
through adulthood (Cloutier et al., 2012; Cloutier & As in our review of the neural correlates of status-based
Gyurovski, 2014; but see Pavarini & Schnall, 2014). How- attention and differentiation, we now consider the poten-
ever, when status is defined strictly in terms of wealth or tial neural substrates of status-based evaluation. We first
power (i.e., control over resources), high-status individu- consider neural responses during status-based evalua-
als can be perceived more negatively than low-status tions from perceptual and knowledge-based antecedents
individuals (Fiske et al., 2002; Fragale et al., 2011; of status. Unlike in our review of the neuroimaging litera-
Hoffman, McCabe, Shachat, & Smith, 1994), eliciting in ture on status-based differentiation and attention, we
some cases feelings of envy (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2007; combine our review of perceptual and knowledge-based
Fiske et al., 2007). Consistent with the adoption of fear- antecedents. This is because neuroimaging studies on
based coercion in dominance-related pathways to status status-based evaluation to date have relied heavily on
attainment and admiration-based deference in prestige knowledge-based antecedents of status. Surprisingly few
pathways to status attainment, dominant individuals tend studies examine the neural evaluation of status as gleaned
to be disliked whereas prestigious individuals tend to be from perceptual antecedents (for possible approaches,
liked (Cheng et al., 2013; Coie & Kupersmidt, 1983; see Mende-Siedlecki, Said, & Todorov, 2013; Vernon
Dodge, 1983; Hawley, 1999, 2002; Kalma et al., 1993). et al., 2014; Walker & Vetter, 2016). This represents one
Moreover, dominance-oriented individuals demonstrate area that may be addressed in future research. In addi-
greater hubristic pride, narcissism, aggression, and dis- tion, because of the scarcity of ERP research on status,
agreeableness in both peer- and self-report data (Cheng we present a limited amount of ERP research in this sec-
et al., 2010). Using the same measures, prestige-oriented tion. Finally, we consider the role of the reward network
individuals show greater authentic pride, agreeableness, in the perception of social status cues.
and self-esteem in both peer- and self-report data.
Differences in status-based evaluations may also Status-based evaluation from perceptual and
depend on the context in which we encounter others knowledge-based status antecedents. A number of
and on the relative importance of each status dimension fMRI investigations have implicated the ventromedial
in that context. For example, in the context of potential prefrontal cortex (VMPFC) in status-based evaluation
external threat, dominant individuals may be more posi- (Cloutier et al., 2012; Cloutier & Gyurovski, 2014; Ly,
tively regarded than in times of relative tranquility (Re, Haynes, Barter, Weinberger, & Zink, 2011). Consistent
DeBruine, Jones, & Perrett, 2013; Spisak, Dekker, Kruger, with this region’s integral role in social cognition
& Van Vugt, 2012; Van Vugt, 2006; Van Vugt et al., 2008; (Adolphs, 2009; Flagan & Beer, 2013), lesion studies have
Van Vugt & Spisak, 2008). Additionally, greater financial linked the VMPFC to a range of abilities from theory of
status may lead to more positive evaluations in corporate mind and empathy (Leopold et al., 2012; Shamay-Tsoory,
environments than in academic environments. Future 2011; Shamay-Tsoory, Aharon-Peretz, & Perry, 2009; but
work may expand on these findings by considering alter- see Bird, Castelli, Malik, Frith, & Husain, 2004) to person
native contexts in which other dimensions of social status and object evaluation (Croft et al., 2010; Fellows & Farah,
may be favored and/or interact. 2007; Gläscher et al., 2012; Henri-Bhargava, Simioni, &
In summary, evidence from the behavioral literature Fellows, 2012; Karafin et al., 2004). Individuals with dam-
indicates that high status typically elicits positive evalua- age to the VMPFC show impairments in emotion recogni-
tions, particularly when status level is achieved through tion (Heberlein, Padon, Gillihan, Farah, & Fellows, 2008;
social competence or prestige (Cheng & Tracy, 2014; Hornak, Rolls, & Wade, 1996), the use of social categories
Hawley, 1999). However, there is considerable variability in the differentiation of dominance (Karafin et al., 2004),
Social Status and Person Perception 485

and in moral judgment (Croft et al., 2010). In fMRI studies amygdala, superior temporal cortex (STS/STG), lateral
on healthy participants, the VMPFC has been implicated prefrontal cortex, cuneus, parietal cortex, insula, and ven-
in the generation of affective value in contexts ranging tral striatum may be components of networks recruited
from purchasing preferences to approach–avoidance during the evaluation of social hierarchical information
motivation (Adolphs, 2009; Berridge & Kringelbach, 2008; (Cloutier et al., 2012; Cloutier & Gyurovski, 2014; Mason
Chib, Rangel, Shimojo, & O’Doherty, 2009; Fellows, 2007; et al., 2014; Singer et al., 2004). Recent reviews (Koski
Frith & Frith, 2012; Roy, Shohamy, & Wager, 2012). Impor- et al., 2015; Pornpattananangkul, Zink, & Chiao, 2014;
tantly, this region is also implicated in affective or moral Swencionis & Fiske, 2014; Watanabe & Yamamoto, 2015)
evaluations of others (Adolphs, 2009; Cloutier et al., 2012; provide some insight into anatomical connections and
Cloutier & Gyurovski, 2014; Croft et  al., 2010; Cunningham, possible functional relationships between brain regions
Johnson, Gatenby, Gore, & Banaji, 2003; Singer, Kiebel, involved in status perception broadly (see also Marsh
Winston, Dolan, & Frith, 2004) as well as oneself (Gusnard, et al., 2009). However, much of our understanding of neu-
Akbudak, Shulman, & Raichle, 2001; Izuma, Saito, & ral networks supporting status-based person evaluation
Sadato, 2010; Moran, Macrae, Heatherton, Wyland, & remains somewhat tentative. In particular, more work is
Kelley, 2006). Consistent with the evidence reviewed needed to characterize the interface of networks support-
above, it is thought that VMPFC activity may reflect the ing status-based differentiation and attention versus status-
integration of social information during person evaluation based evaluation. The implementation of network-based
(Flagan & Beer, 2013; Roy et al., 2012). analyses such as partial least squares (PLS: McIntosh,
In line with its putative involvement in social evalua- Chau, & Protzner, 2004; McIntosh & Lobaugh, 2004) or
tions, evidence suggests that the VMPFC is sensitive to psychophysiological interaction (PPI: Friston et al., 1997)
perceived social status. One fMRI study (Cloutier et al., in addition to traditional contrast-based analyses may lead
2012) found greater VMPFC activity when forming gen- to a better understanding of the neural networks support-
eral impressions of faces previously paired with occupa- ing status-based evaluation, among other social cognitive
tions varying in moral status (e.g., “is a tobacco executive” processes (e.g., Cloutier, Li, Mišic, Correll, & Berman,
or “does cancer research”). In other words, the VMPFC 2016).
was sensitive to the implied moral status of individuals
and especially to targets paired with person knowledge Subjective status and reward.  Social status may also
denoting high (vs. low) moral status. In a subsequent affect person evaluations via reward processing. Consis-
study (Cloutier & Gyurovski, 2014), instead of using tent with studies on nonhuman primates linking high sta-
descriptive knowledge to convey social status, partici- tus with reward ( J. R. Anderson, 1998; Andrews, Bhat, &
pants were presented with individual faces superimposed Rosenblum, 1995; Deaner et al., 2005), human neuroim-
on colored backgrounds representing the individual’s aging studies find that perceiving high-status individuals
level (high, equal, or low) along a given dimension or improving one’s own status elicits activity in brain
(financial or moral) of social status. Results revealed that regions associated with reward processing (e.g., Ly et al.,
VMPFC activity was predicted by the interaction between 2011; Zink et al., 2006). The neural reward system is
the target’s presented status dimension (financial vs. comprised of the dopaminergic ventral tegmental area
moral) and status level. As previously reported (Cloutier and substantia nigra in the midbrain and the nucleus
et al., 2012), VMPFC activity was greater when viewing accumbens in the ventral striatum (Ikemoto & Panksepp,
targets with higher compared to lower moral status. 1999; Schultz, 1998; Schultz, Dayan, & Montague, 1997;
However, the reverse was found for the financial status Wise & Hoffman, 1992; Wise & Rompre, 1989) as well as
dimension. Namely, VMPFC responses were greater for their cortical afferents. Here, we review work on sensitiv-
targets with lower compared to higher financial status. ity to social status in the ventral striatum, as the literature
Postscan ratings revealed that targets with low moral sta- has focused primarily on this region. Notably, the ventral
tus were judged as less likeable than targets with similar striatum and its main cortical afferents (e.g., orbitofrontal
or higher moral status. However, this explicit evaluative cortex, MPFC, amygdala) are thought to be relatively flex-
pattern was not reliably observed for the different levels ible in their responses to reward, showing sensitivity to
of financial status. Taken together, these results challenge multiple attributes of rewards, including their degree of
a common assumption in the behavioral literature relevance, anticipation, and enjoyment (e.g., Fareri &
reviewed above that high-status individuals are evaluated Delgado, 2014; Kirsch et al., 2003; Pessiglione, Seymour,
positively, suggesting instead that status-based evalua- Flandin, Dolan, & Frith, 2006; for reviews, see Berridge &
tions depend on the status dimension and the context. Kringelbach, 2008; Ruff & Fehr, 2014).
Beyond the VMPFC, there are a number of brain Previous work has found striatal sensitivity to per-
regions that may be involved in the evaluation of per- ceived high status in contexts where higher status indi-
ceived social status. Extant research suggests that the viduals are not in direct competition with lower status
486 Mattan et al.

individuals. In the previously discussed study by Zink characteristics, such as their subjective status. Ly and
and colleagues (2008), the participant’s and virtual con- colleagues (2011) presented participants with two target
federates’ status levels were assigned based on task com- faces in sequence. Each face was paired with a short
petence (e.g., one star for low status vs. three stars for statement ascribing low or high SES (e.g., “This is Jane.
high status) in an incentivized but noncompetitive per- Jane’s status is lower than your status.”). After both faces
ceptual judgment game. It was found that viewing a were individually presented, participants viewed them
high-status (vs. low-status) player’s face and rank at the again together and were required to make a status-
start of each trial elicited greater activity in the ventral relevant judgment (e.g., “Which person attended an Ivy
striatum. Notably, this striatal preference for high- versus League college?”). Results showed greater ventral striatal
low-status co-players was observed under both stable activity when responding to questions relevant to others
and unstable hierarchical contexts. One possibility is that with similar (vs. dissimilar) status relative to the partici-
participants were more motivated by the rewarding pant’s own subjective status. For example, participants
experience of outperforming the putatively more skilled high in subjective status would typically show larger
high-status player. Indeed, in other similar incentivized ventral striatum responses for the Ivy League example
noncompetitive decision-making studies not explicitly question provided above relative to a question more
involving social status, greater ventral striatal activity has relevant to others with lower status (e.g., “Which person
been observed both for absolute individual gains but has been fired from more than one job?”). In contrast to
also when participants obtain better outcomes (e.g., win work with nonhuman primates finding that high-status
more money, lose less money) than another player (Bault, conspecifics typically elicit greater reward responses
Joffily, Rustichini, & Coricelli, 2011; Dvash, Gilam, ( J. R. Anderson, 1998; Andrews et al., 1995; Deaner
Ben-Ze’ev, Hendler, & Shamay-Tsoory, 2010; Fareri & et al., 2005), Ly and colleagues’ (2011) results indicate
Delgado, 2014; Fliessbach et al., 2007). Another example that individuals with a similar level of social status may
of status-based reward has been suggested to stem from be more rewarding. It remains to be determined whether
the use of observed moral behavior during impression this interaction is the result of in-group evaluative bias,
formation (Uhlmann et al., 2015). Although moral char- status-specific tendencies for downward/upward com-
acter and reputation are not necessarily used to infer sta- parison, or some combination of the two.4 Nonetheless,
tus, they may be considered as such insofar as individuals these neuroimaging results once again provide evidence
are differentiated along a moral dimension (e.g., trust- that high-status individuals may not necessarily elicit a
worthiness, integrity). Notably, both one’s own acquired positive or rewarding evaluation.
moral standing (Izuma, Saito, & Sadato, 2008, 2010) and
the perceived moral standing of others (Delgado, Frank, Time course of status-based evaluations.  In contrast
& Phelps, 2005; Singer et al., 2004) have been found to to the fMRI literature exploring the relationship between
elicit greater striatal activity, suggesting that the moral social status and evaluation, there has been almost no
dimension of social status may be closely tied to reward. research exploring the time course of status-based evalu-
However, direct contrasts of moral status with other ations. However, two recent ERP investigations suggest a
dimensions of social status are needed. Taken together, potential relationship between social status and down-
these findings suggest that the ventral striatum may be stream evaluative ERP components.
particularly sensitive to favorable social comparisons that The P300 is a positive going deflection, occurring
may elevate one’s status along any social status dimen- between 300 ms and 800 ms. Variation in this component
sion (for reviews, see Bhanji & Delgado, 2014; Swencionis has been linked to person evaluation (Cacioppo, Crites,
& Fiske, 2014). Although receiving better outcomes than Gardner, & Berntson, 1994) where enhanced amplitudes
high-status targets is certainly rewarding in competitive occur in response to negatively evaluated conspecifics
contexts (e.g., schadenfreude: Cikara & Fiske, 2012, (Bartholow, Fabiani, Gratton, & Bettencourt, 2001; Ito &
2013), it appears this may be the case even when the Cacioppo, 2000; Kubota & Ito, 2007) or stimuli with
perceiver is not in direct competition with others (Dvash greater motivational salience (Nieuwenhuis, Aston-Jones,
et al., 2010; Takahashi et al., 2009; Zink et al., 2008). The & Cohen, 2005). Evidence for the potential involvement of
degree to which this reward may vary as a function of the P300 in social status was found in recent research in
status dimension and the perceiver’s preferred pathway our laboratory. To explore how social status dimensions
to status attainment remain open questions. and social status levels affect downstream ERP responses,
Although the preceding literature suggests that earn- we trained participants to associate targets with either
ing higher status and viewing higher status individuals high or low financial or moral status (Gyurovski, Kubota,
elicits neural activity in the ventral striatum, the results Cardenas-Iniguez, & Cloutier, in press). Participants later
of one fMRI study (Ly et al., 2011) suggest that status- viewed the targets during EEG collection and were
based reward responses may also depend on perceiver instructed to identify their status level. The results revealed
Social Status and Person Perception 487

a dissociation of P300 amplitudes to targets varying in positive evaluations, particularly when status level is
social status, such that greater P300 amplitudes were achieved through social competence or prestige. How-
observed in response to high financial and low moral sta- ever, there is considerable variability in the way status is
tus targets, relative to low financial and high moral status evaluated, with overly positive popular conceptions
targets, respectively. The research converges with previ- sometimes at odds with objective indices. Moreover, neu-
ous fMRI social status research (Cloutier et al., 2012; roimaging findings reveal that the evaluation of status
Cloutier & Gyurovski, 2014) and is consistent with the depends both on the status dimension and its relative
idea that evaluations of high-status targets are not neces- importance in a given context. Although more limited in
sarily positive (e.g., greater P300 amplitudes to high finan- scope, the fMRI literature on social status and reward
cial status targets). This research also underscores the highlights that high status in others may be perceived as
importance of considering potential interactions between rewarding, perhaps especially when the high-status indi-
status dimensions and levels. In addition, contrary to ERP vidual who is perceived reflects favorably on the per-
studies reviewed in the above section on the time course ceiver (e.g., an ingroup member or a favorable social
of status-based differentiation and attention, we did not comparison). Future work may consider how different
observe any amplitude differences in early components dimensions of status shape person evaluation and reward
implicated in selective attention (i.e., N100, P200, and as a function of the social context and the perceiver’s
N200), indicating that status-based evaluation may mani- own social status.
fest later. One notable factor about this study is that, in Findings from fMRI implicate an extensive network of
contrast to the majority of ERP person perception and brain regions supporting status-based person evaluation.
evaluation studies, social status was inferred from person The VMPFC is thought to support the generation of affec-
knowledge rather than perceptual antecedents (i.e., faces tive value as a function of an individual’s status (among
were counterbalanced across conditions). Future ERP other perceptual and knowledge-based characteristics).
research should differentiate the influence of these status The ventral striatum may reflect the degree of reward
antecedents on person perception and evaluation in rela- value associated with the perception of targets varying in
tion to the time course of social status processing. social status in distinct social contexts. Although not dis-
Additional research also highlights the relationship cussed at length in this section, other brain regions may
between social status and ERP components relevant to per- also support status-based evaluations, including the
son evaluations. In one study (Breton et al., 2014), partici- amygdala, STS, and insula. However, these regions
pants learned their own rank and that of several competitors appear with less frequency across experiments and may
(each represented by a face) based on performance from be specific to the paradigms or stimuli used. Further
several rounds of different cognitive tasks. ERPs were mea- work is needed to better understand the role of these
sured as participants passively viewed each competitor’s regions within the greater network of regions supporting
face (absent status information) in preparation for a subse- status-based person evaluation.
quent judgment of the competitor’s status level relative to The relatively scarce ERP literature converges with the
the participant’s. A greater late positive potential (LPP: 400– fMRI literature, emphasizing the importance of consider-
700 ms window) was observed for high-status competitors ing how status dimensions may differentially shape status-
compared to middle- and low-status competitors. The based evaluations. From this literature it appears that social
authors interpreted this finding as evidence of sustained status affects later temporal stages capturing more sus-
cognitive processing, consistent with previous work on the tained and evaluative cognitive processing (approximately
LPP (Gable & Adams, 2013; Schupp et al., 2000). Although 300–700 ms poststimulus onset). The reviewed ERP
it is unclear the degree to which status sensitivity in the LPP research provides further evidence that high social status
is linked to motivated engagement with and/or more nega- targets are not always evaluated positively. Future research
tive evaluations of high-status individuals, future studies should build upon this work to explore how the intersec-
systematically manipulating the reward value and level of tion of status antecedents, dimensions, and levels impacts
status may prove helpful in delineating the role of the LPP the time course of status evaluation in different contexts.
in the time course of status perception. Future work may
also consider the extent to which two competing status Toward an Integration of Behavioral
dimensions may affect LPP response as a function of their and Brain-Imaging Investigations
relative importance.
of Status
Research reviewed here suggests that across different
Summary social hierarchies, social status has a complex impact on
In this section, we considered behavioral and neuroimaging the outcomes of person perception and evaluation.
studies of status-based person evaluation. Findings from the Although it can be said that great strides have been made
behavioral literature indicate that high status typically elicits by behavioral and brain-imaging investigations into the
488 Mattan et al.

impact of social hierarchies and social status on how we social status (see Fig. 1). This framework differentiates
perceive and evaluate others, this research area remains pathways to status (i.e., strategies for the acquisition of
relatively underrepresented. For example, a simple search social rank) from the different dimensions of status (i.e.,
on the APA’s PsycNET reveals 349 results for the search social attributes on which others may be ranked such as
terms “race” and “social cognition” but only 92 results for competence, wealth, morality). Individuals may possess
the terms “social status” and “social cognition.” In the neu- different levels of social status depending on the dimen-
roimaging literature, a similar difference exists. Searching sion in question (e.g., high in financial status, low in
“race” and “fMRI” yields 79 results, whereas searching moral status). One’s status level may be inferred and
“social status” and “fMRI” yields only 33 results. The dis- subsequently evaluated based on perceptual and/or
parity is even greater when searching for ERP instead of knowledge-based antecedents. Finally, the consequences
fMRI (65 and 7 results, respectively).5 We suggest that the of an individual’s level of social status on each dimension
great variability in the constructs and approaches may be contingent on the relative importance of that
employed to explore the impact of social status on social- dimension in the present social context or in a given
cognitive and evaluative processes may contribute to this social hierarchy. See Figure 2 for a detailed depiction of
state of affairs. Given the profound impact of social status the multiple factors influencing status differentiation
on individuals and societies, it is paramount to move for- along a single dimension and for subsequent conse-
ward in our understanding of the pervasive influence it quences in cognition, affect, and behavior. This frame-
has on how we perceive, attend to, and evaluate others. work is important in that it clearly differentiates previous
findings examining one aspect of status (e.g., strategic
pathways) with findings more pertinent to another aspect
Reconceptualizing status within a of status (e.g., perceived level of status on a given dimen-
social neuroscientific framework sion). In the present section, we attempt to contribute to
One contribution of the present review is to introduce a the development of this framework by highlighting these
framework and common vocabulary for research on conceptual distinctions and some limitations often

Status Differentiation Along a Single Dimension

Antecedents Status Level Consequences

Differentiation Cognition
Percepts
• Facial structure • Attention
• Facial expression • Memory
• Body posture Determinants of Relative • Stereotype Accessibility
• Age, gender, race Importance
• Clothing Affect
• Speech/intonation Context • Evaluation
• Physical environment • Competition vs. cooperation • Well-Being
• Hierarchy/social group
Person Knowledge Behavior
• Ascribed attributes Target Characteristics • Decision Making
• Inferred attributes • Influence or control of resources (power) • Discrimination
• Peer-based reputation • Status level on other dimension(s)
• Group affiliations
Perceiver Characteristics
• Subjective/objective level of power
• Status level on other dimension(s)
Attention • Pathway to status acquisition
• Sensitivity to social comparison
• Childhood SES and current stress level

Fig. 2.  Differentiation of social status along a single dimension. This framework may be applied to the study of
any dimension of social status (e.g., dominance, prestige, SES) and its consequences for diverse facets of person
perception and social cognition. This framework posits that the target’s and/or perceiver’s status level along other
social dimensions as well as each dimension’s relative importance may moderate the consequences of perceived
status for behavior. A dimension’s relative importance may also impact attention to different antecedents of status
and the differentiation of status levels.
Social Status and Person Perception 489

overlooked in the literature and, in turn, suggesting we integrate existing work on the neural correlates of status-
promising future avenues of research in the area of social based attention and evaluation in response to perceptual
neuroscience. and knowledge-based antecedents. It is hoped that the
present model will guide future research and theoretical
Summary of neuroimaging findings on perceived refinement in the social neuroscience of status.
social status. Despite the number of neuroimaging As addressed in this review, the consequences of
studies on social status, the diversity of operationaliza- social status for attention and evaluation are thought to
tions makes it difficult at this stage to provide a compre- be supported by largely distinct neural networks (see Fig.
hensive neuroanatomical model of social status 3). The identification of and attention to hierarchical rank
perception. Here, we attempt to sketch such a model, (i.e., status levels) appears to be supported by frontopa-
highlighting key opportunities for future study. We rietal (IPS, lateral PFC), amygdala, and occipitotemporal
believe that investigating the neural correlates of pro- regions (occipitotemporal gyrus, ventral temporal cor-
cesses pertinent to the strategic pathways to status acqui- tex). As discussed in preceding sections, different regions
sition, the antecedents of different status dimensions, the within this network are thought to support separate
level of status, and the relative importance of a given aspects of status-based differentiation and attention.
dimension will provide critical opportunities to better Whereas the IPS is thought to index the differentiation of
understand the pervasive impact that social status has on status levels or social distance (Chiao et al., 2009; Cloutier
our lives. Within the context of the present framework, et al., 2012; Cloutier & Gyurovski, 2013; Parkinson et al.,

STATUS DIFFERENTIATION AND STATUS-BASED ATTENTION

Chiao et al., 2009; Cloutier et al., 2012; Cloutier & Gyurovski,
IPS/IPL A 2013; Freeman et al., 2009; Zink et al., 2008
Haaker et al., 2016; Marsh et al., 2009; Quirin et al., 2013;
DLPFC* B Zink et al., 2008
H
Farrow et al., 2011; Marsh et al., 2009; Mason et al., 2014;
G VLPFC* C Quirin et al., 2013

Amygdala** D Haaker et al., 2016; Kumaran et al., 2012; Zink et al., 2008
Cloutier & Gyurovski, 2013; Farrow et al., 2011;
Occipitotemporal Cortex E Marsh et al., 2009
Chiao et al., 2008, 2009; Cloutier & Gyurovski, 2013;
Ventral Temporal Cortex*** F Farrow et al., 2011; Zink et al., 2008

E STATUS-BASED EVALUATION
I VMPFC
Cloutier et al., 2012; Cloutier & Gyurovski, 2014;
G Karafin et al., 2004; Singer et al., 2004
D
MPFC H Freeman et al., 2009; Zink et al., 2008

Amygdala** D Singer et al., 2004

Delgado et al., 2005; Freeman et al., 2009; Ly et al.,
Caudate/Ventral Striatum I
B A 2011; Singer et al., 2004; Zink et al., 2008
E Insula J Cloutier & Gyurovski, 2014; Singer et al., 2004
C J K
F Cloutier et al., 2012; Cloutier & Gyurovski, 2014;
STS/STG K Mason et al., 2014; Singer et al., 2004

Ventral Temporal Cortex*** F Singer et al., 2004

* May be limited to competition/dominance-relevant contexts
** May be limited to learning/updating/recall of knowledge-based status antecedents
*** May be limited to paradigms involving faces combined with perceptual- or knowledge-based status antecedents

Fig. 3.  Brain regions believed to support status-based differentiation and attention (red letters) and status-based evaluation (blue letters). Regions
involved in both differentiation/attention and evaluation are represented by purple letters (D & F).
490 Mattan et al.

2014; Yamakawa et al., 2009; Zink et al., 2008), frontal about recently learned dominance levels (Haaker et al.,
and temporal regions may support controlled attentional 2016; Kumaran et al., 2012) and when viewing high-
and behavioral adjustments required by the presence of status competitors in an unstable hierarchy (Zink et al.,
a higher status individual, particularly if status is opera- 2008). On the other hand, studies on status-based evalu-
tionalized in terms of dominance (Haaker et al., 2016; ation suggest the amygdala may be sensitive to likeable
Marsh et al., 2009). In the context of status hierarchy individuals (Singer et al., 2004; Yamakawa et al., 2009).
judgments, amygdala activity may contribute to learning, Both the attentional and evaluative scenarios are consis-
updating, and recall of status levels (see Haaker et al., tent with previous proposals indicating the amygdala is
2016; Kumaran, Melo, & Duzel, 2012). It is unclear sensitive to the motivational relevance of the perceived
whether the amygdala is similarly responsive for other social targets (Adolphs, 2010; Adolphs & Spezio, 2006;
dimensions of social status. Buchanan, Tranel, & Adophs, 2009).
Status-based evaluations appear to be supported by a
distinct network including cortical midline regions Insights from the neuroimaging literature on per-
(VMPFC), basal ganglia (caudate, ventral striatum), amyg- ceived social status.  The present review of the neuro-
dala, temporal regions (STS/STG, ventral temporal cor- imaging literature on the impact of status on person
tex), and insular cortex. Similar to the network supporting perception and evaluation highlights the advantages of
status-based differentiation and attention, the different adopting a social neuroscience perspective to advance
components of a status-based evaluation network may our understanding of perceived social status above and
support different processes involved in person evalua- beyond what has already been learned from the exten-
tion. Receiving reward-learning signals from midbrain sive behavioral literature. Nonetheless, because existing
afferents, the ventral striatum is thought to compute the neuroimaging work on social status is also based on a
expected reward value of individuals with varying status variety of operationalizations and dimensions of status,
levels (Delgado et al., 2005; Singer et al., 2004; Zink further efforts will be required to go beyond the anatomi-
et al., 2008). Consistent with its putative role in integrat- cal mapping of status-related processes (e.g., differentia-
ing different sources of information during person evalu- tion, attention, evaluation). The mapping of these neural
ation (Flagan & Beer, 2013; Roy et al., 2012), the VMPFC substrates is nevertheless important, as it allows us to
may serve to integrate status-related reward (from ventral consider via reverse inference what neurocognitive
striatum) and other information (e.g., status levels for mechanisms may be involved in the perception of status
other social dimensions) to compute the target’s overall (Moran & Zaki, 2013; Poldrack, 2006). For example, fMRI
motivational value. Other regions such as the amygdala studies have revealed that the differentiation of status is
(see Singer et al., 2004; Yamakawa et al., 2009; Zink consistently supported by brain regions (e.g., IPS) that also
et al., 2008) and the superior temporal cortex (see support the differentiation of numeric, social, temporal,
Cloutier & Gyurovski, 2014; Mason et al., 2014; Singer and physical distances (Chiao et al., 2009; Parkinson et al.,
et al., 2004) may facilitate attention to socially relevant 2014; Yamakawa et al., 2009), indicating that status may be
characteristics of the target during evaluation, such as represented in the brain as social or rank differences
status differentials between self and other, emotional (Cloutier et al., 2012; Cloutier & Gyurovski, 2013, 2014).
expressions, and/or mental states. Finally, consistent with Such insights have informed our proposed model of status-
previous findings, activity in the insula (Singer et al., based perception and evaluation (see Fig. 1). Furthermore,
2004) may reflect the degree of affective responses to guided by the proposed theoretical framework in our
targets varying in social status. examination of the broader fMRI literature on status-based
Although the two networks supporting status-based perception and evaluation, we can parse existing studies
attention and evaluation are largely distinct, comparisons as a function of their targeted status dimension. For
across studies suggest some potential overlaps, particu- example, we have identified brain regions (e.g., VLPFC
larly in the ventral temporal cortex and the amygdala. and DLPFC) that may be uniquely recruited when differ-
The implication of ventral temporal cortex in both net- entiating others based on dominance levels and/or in the
works is perhaps unsurprising given that many neuroim- dominance-relevant context of competition (see Fig. 3).
aging studies have relied on the visual presentation of A better understanding of the role of these regions in the
face stimuli. This suggests that the face-processing net- perception of dominance could complement our under-
work may be modulated by both the differentiation and standing of perceived dominance from the existing
the evaluation of a face’s social status. The role of the behavioral literature.
amygdala across both status-based differentiation and Beyond facilitating brain mapping of status-related
evaluation is perhaps more varied. For studies of status- phenomena, we believe that an integrated social neuro-
based differentiation, the amygdala appears to be most science framework for the study of social status will set
active for correct (and increasingly certain) judgments the stage for more direct tests of competing accounts of
Social Status and Person Perception 491

how perceived social status affects attention and evalua- these networks largely overlap with regions involved in dif-
tion. For example, using both fMRI (Cloutier et al., 2012; ferentiation/attention and evaluation of targets varying in
Cloutier & Gyurovski, 2014) and EEG (Gyurovski et al., in dimensions other than social status. Because much of the
press), our lab has found an interaction between status work reviewed above relies on a correlational approach, it
dimension (moral vs. financial) and status level (high vs. will be important for future work to explicitly test the
low) in VMPFC activity and the P300 ERP component, potential relationships between these regions and their
respectively. The data from these studies converge and consequences for behavioral responses to targets varying
ultimately challenge the frequent assumption that high in social status. One means of addressing this limitation is
social status always elicits similar (viz., positive) evalua- by using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). Through
tions. Similarly, findings from Ly and colleagues (2011) the use of locally generated magnetic fields, TMS temporar-
showing that reward network responses are more sensi- ily increases or decreases neural activity in a targeted
tive to individuals closer in status to the perceiver’s sub- cortical region (Hallett, 2007; Pascual-Leone, Walsh, &
jective status similarly provide evidence against the Rothwell, 2000; Wagner, Valero-Cabre, & Pascual-Leone,
assumption that high status (in others) is always seen in a 2007). By experimentally manipulating neural activity in a
rewarding light. Finally, findings from Zink and colleagues particular cortical region, researchers are able to more pre-
(2008) highlight that different contexts (e.g., stable vs. cisely study the causal role of a given brain region in the
unstable hierarchies) can alter the neural response to indi- context of a social hierarchy (e.g., Hogeveen, Inzlicht, &
viduals of higher status in brain regions associated with Obhi, 2014). As with TMS, the study of neuropsychological
social salience and emotion (e.g., amygdala). patients can also shed light on the contribution of a lesioned
Despite the numerous operationalizations of status in brain region to a given cognitive process (e.g., Karafin
the literature, few neuroimaging studies have directly con- et al., 2004).
trasted distinct dimensions or operationalizations of status In light of our proposed framework, it is apparent that
as in the behavioral literature (e.g., Blader & Chen, 2012; the number of studies using sufficiently similar opera-
Blader, Shirako, & Chen, 2016; Cheng & Tracy, 2014; tionalizations of status is limited. As a result, it is unclear
Cloutier, Cardenas-Iniquez, et al., 2016). One current whether neural networks reportedly responding to one
assumption is that (high) status generally captures and dimension of social status are also implicated in the per-
guides attention, but it remains unclear if status inferred ception of other status dimensions. Nonetheless, with the
from distinct antecedents or based on any given dimen- exception of lateral PFC (see Fig. 3), it appears that the
sion has such an effect. Moreover, even when similar network supporting status-based differentiation is rela-
status-based attentional effects are observed in behavior tively unaffected by the status dimension (for reviews,
(e.g., response time, eye gaze), the psychological mecha- see Cloutier, Cardenas-Iniquez, et al., 2016; Pornpattana-
nisms underlying these effects may still differ (e.g., top- nangkul et al., 2014). However, it is less clear that this
down control vs. inhibition). To illustrate, one dimension may be the case for status-based evaluation.
of status (e.g., prestige) could engage greater DLPFC Finally, the development of more comprehensive neu-
activity (thought to reflect top-down attentional control: roscientific models of the networks underpinning social
Corbetta et al., 2008; Corbetta & Shulman, 2002), whereas status perception will require a better understanding of
another (e.g., dominance) may engage greater VLPFC the processes involved in the perception of different
(thought to reflect processes related to inhibition: Aron status-based antecedents (e.g., perceptual vs. knowledge-
et al., 2004; Cools et al., 2002; Elliott et al., 2000; Levy & based). The use of multivariate analyses such as PLS
Wagner, 2011). A simultaneous examination of ERP com- (Krishnan, Williams, McIntosh, & Abdi, 2011; McIntosh
ponents, such as the P200, which is known to reflect the et al., 2004; McIntosh & Lobaugh, 2004) or representa-
processing of threatening and distinctive stimuli (Carretié tional similarity analysis (RSA: Kriegeskorte, Mur, &
et al., 2001; Eimer et al., 2003; Halgren & Marinkovic, Bandettini, 2008; Nili et al., 2014) may be particularly
1995; Ito & Bartholow, 2009; Kubota & Ito, 2009; Schutter useful for painting a clearer picture of distributed brain
et al., 2004), may provide further insight into attentional regions supporting the perception of different classes of
differences as a function of different status antecedents status antecedents.
and dimensions. As the literature on the consequences of
perceived social status continues to grow, we are optimis- Future directions in the social
tic that the use of neuroimaging methods will greatly facil-
itate theoretical refinement in the domain of social
neuroscience of status
attention and beyond. Achieving greater clarity in experimental appro­
aches to status.  By providing a conceptual framework
Current limitations in neuroimaging perceived emphasizing construct clarity, we hope to generate more
social status.  The present review suggests the existence precise hypotheses in future work toward an emerging
of partially separate networks supporting status-based dif- social neuroscience model of social status. As reviewed
ferentiation/attention and status-based evaluation. Notably, above, one’s status level along any dimension may be
492 Mattan et al.

inferred from a number of antecedents (see Fig. 2). Both history: see Del Giudice, Gangestad, & Kaplan, 2015;
perceptual features and person knowledge may provide Griskevicius et al., 2013; Griskevicius, Tybur, Delton, &
useful information about an individual’s social status Robertson, 2011). Given the relationship between subjec-
level along a given status dimension. These antecedents tive status and reward reviewed above, one possibility is
are subsequently used to differentiate the status level of that individuals from low-SES backgrounds may favor
an individual within a social group. As discussed in this high-risk/high-reward pathways to higher status (e.g.,
review, the perceived status level of an individual has dominance). To summarize, investigators interested in
important consequences for attention and evaluation, in better understanding how social status shapes person
addition to other social-cognitive processes. However, a perception and evaluation should carefully consider the
growing body of evidence suggests that these conse- social dimension conveying status and the perceiver-by-
quences depend not only on status level but also on the context interaction in which it is perceived before
dimension conveying social status (e.g., Cloutier et al., generalizing their findings to other status dimensions or
2012; Cloutier & Gyurovski, 2013, 2014), the relative contexts.
importance of that dimension to the perceiver and/or the Apart from explicitly investigating the way status is
immediate context (Freeman et al., 2009; Quirin et al., inferred from different social dimensions and in different
2013), and the perceiver’s status level (Cloutier et al., contexts, efforts should be devoted to better isolate the
2013; Kraus & Keltner, 2009; Ly et al., 2011). physiological correlates supporting status-based person
To better illustrate these points, let us briefly consider perception and evaluation. For instance, variation in
dominance and prestige.6 In the behavioral literature, chronic social status has been linked to stress responses
dominance and prestige have been studied in a number during social interactions among nonhuman and human
of ways including via (1) self-reported strategies for primates (Mazur, 1985; Mazur & Booth, 1998; Sapolsky,
achieving higher social status (Case & Maner, 2014; Maner 1993, 2004, 2005). Differences in attention allocation and
& Mead, 2010; Mead & Maner, 2012a); (2) perceptual evaluative responses typical of high- and low-status per-
cues such as race, physical formidability, attractiveness, ceivers may help explain such phenomena (Cloutier
or clothing (DeWall & Maner, 2008; Maner et al., 2008; et al., 2013; Ly et al., 2011; Muscatell et al., 2012) in con-
Todorov, 2011; Todorov et al., 2008; Vernon et al., 2014); cert with the activity of hormones such as testosterone
and (3) person knowledge regarding status-enhancing and cortisol (Carré & Olmstead, 2015; Chiao, 2010;
abilities and personality traits (Cheng et al., 2013; Cheng Hamilton et al., 2015; Mehta et al., 2008; Mehta & Prasad,
et al., 2010, von Rueden et al., 2008, 2011). As previously 2015). In hierarchically organized species from Cichlid
discussed, these three operationalizations should corre- fish (Burmeister, Jarvis, & Fernald, 2005; Maruska &
spond to different areas of investigation. Whereas the Fernald, 2010) to humans (Carré & Olmstead, 2015;
first approach to status examines pathways to status Mazur & Booth, 1998), changes in status level bring about
acquisition, the last two approaches examine distinct a host of physiological changes, especially in the context
antecedents of status differentiation. of competitive interactions. Notably, hierarchies allowing
The diversity of ways in which dominance and pres- for a considerable degree of upward mobility have been
tige are operationalized needs to be considered by linked to increased competitive behavior from low-status
researchers wishing to study the impact of status both at individuals (Hays & Bendersky, 2015). In the aftermath of
the behavioral and the neural levels. For example, studies such competition, testosterone levels and aggression
relying on visual cues of dominance or prestige (e.g., especially in men tend to increase in victorious competi-
Marsh et al., 2009) may involve distinct networks of brain tors and decrease in losing competitors (Carré, Campbell,
regions when compared to studies differentiating domi- Lozoya, Goetz, & Welker, 2013). It remains to be seen
nance or prestige based on person knowledge (e.g., how readily and for how long the ensuing nonverbal
Farrow et al., 2011). In such an instance, an explicit con- changes (e.g., increased or decreased dominant postur-
sideration of the antecedents of status differentiation is ing or pride expressions) are detected by perceivers out-
required when interpreting the results. Furthermore, in side the original competitive context. Additionally, future
both cases, responses to perceived dominance and pres- work may consider the physiological and nonverbal
tige are likely modulated by the degree to which the alterations brought about by status changes in less
perceiver or cultural context favors these dimensions as a directly competitive contexts (e.g., Zink et al., 2008).
means of status acquisition (cf. Freeman et al., 2009; Finally, our proposed framework suggests rich possi-
Quirin et al., 2013). One intriguing direction may be to bilities for the study of interactions between dimensions
consider the childhood SES of the perceiver. Individuals of social status at the intersection of social categories
from low SES (vs. high) backgrounds are thought to such as age, gender, and race. Although many consider
default to riskier strategies to maximize reward outcomes, perceptually available cues as important antecedents to
particularly under stressful conditions (i.e., a fast life status inferences (e.g., DeWall & Maner, 2008; Freeman
Social Status and Person Perception 493

et al., 2011; Maner et al., 2008; Shriver et al., 2008), the the interaction of race and gender with various indicators
interaction of status and perceptually identifiable social of social status to better understand the variables shaping
categories are at present largely overlooked in the litera- the distributed network of brain regions involved in
ture on person perception and evaluation. In the follow- person perception. In approaching such interactions, it
ing section, we explore some possible directions in this will be important to consider perceiver individual differ-
vein. ences such as contact with racial outgroup members
(Cloutier, Li, & Correll, 2014; Cloutier, Li, et al., 2016) and
Status at the intersection of social dimensions and endorsement of status-legitimizing beliefs (Oldmeadow
categories. Primarily, this review has focused on how & Fiske, 2007; Pratto, Stallworth, & Sidanius, 1997;
social status along isolated dimensions impacts person Wilkins, Wellman, Babbitt, Toosi, & Schad, 2015). For
perception in the domains of attention allocation and example, research suggests that Whites endorsing status-
person evaluation. However, our expanded theoretical legitimizing beliefs perceive rises in social status of Black
framework implies that individuals who may be consid- individuals as threatening (Wilkins & Kaiser, 2014). Simi-
ered high status on one dimension (e.g., financial status) larly, males who endorse social dominance orientation to
may not be considered high status along a different and a greater extent demonstrate greater gender differences
perhaps equally important dimension (e.g., morality). At in issues relevant to gender equity (Pratto et al., 1997).
present, few have considered the intersection of multiple Accordingly, group membership (i.e., gender and race) in
social dimensions in the differentiation of social status, concert with beliefs about status more generally may
much less how such a multiply determined rank may impact the differentiation of social status and its atten-
impact person perception and evaluation. Furthermore, tional and evaluative consequences for person percep-
as suggested in Figure 2, other social dimensions such as tion. In sum, research considering both the social status
attractiveness (Bauldry et al., 2016; Vernon et al., 2014) of targets and their salient social categories (e.g., gender
may moderate the consequences of status level in per- and race) opens important avenues to better understand
ception and behavior, especially when these other social how status shapes social interactions in our everyday
dimensions are made salient by virtue of their self- lives. As race- and gender-based wealth inequality wid-
relevance or the prevailing social context (Takahashi ens (Kochnar & Fry, 2014), it is paramount to adopt an
et al., 2009). In summary, interactions between different intersectional approach to the study of social status to
social dimensions in the determination of social rank and better understand the mechanisms that give rise to social
its downstream consequences are still largely unexplored. injustice to more accurately develop research-supported
We are hopeful that future work will build on this litera- disparity interventions.
ture, focusing particularly on the intersection of tradi-
tional status-related dimensions (i.e., dominance, prestige,
Conclusion
SES) with other social dimensions that have been shown
to shape impression formation. Counter to contemporary Western society values of fairness
It is also important to consider how perceived social and equality, status hierarchies shape human social cogni-
status may be shaped by an individual’s perceived group tion with important consequences for everyday life (Fiske
of belonging (Fiske et al., 2016; Sanchez & Garcia, 2012). et al., 2016). Existing research tends to consider the effects
For example, according to Status Characteristics Theory of perceived status by focusing on differentiated status lev-
(Berger et al., 1972), higher social status is associated els within a single hierarchical dimension (e.g., dominance).
with certain groups, such as Whites, males, middle-aged, However, evidence highlights that we readily infer the social
and educated individuals with substantial occupational status of others based on various social dimensions from a
prestige. Therefore, race and gender may also serve as number of perceptual and knowledge-based cues. More-
visual and/or knowledge-based antecedents of social sta- over, depending on their relative importance in the current
tus, similar to dominance-related (or prestige-related, context, these status dimensions (and their corresponding
etc.) cues and knowledge. Importantly, these diverse sta- antecedents) can impact the way we attend to, remember,
tus cues may interact with other status indicators during and evaluate others to varying degrees. Beyond the present
person perception and evaluation (Freeman et al., 2011). review’s focus on the perception of others, one’s own social
Indeed, in the context of contemporary American cul- status bears important consequences for social cognition
ture, social status and race are historically intertwined and corresponding neural functioning. Specifically, existing
(Allport, 1954; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Members of racial social neuroscience investigations of variations in perceiver
minority groups (e.g., Black Americans) are often status suggest that lower SES is associated with neural activ-
assumed to be of low status, whereas White individuals ity indicative of greater mentalizing, empathy, motor reso-
are often assumed to possess high status (Wilkins & nance, and vigilance (for a review, see Varnum, 2016).
Kaiser, 2014). Future studies may benefit from exploring Additional research suggests that perceiver status also has
494 Mattan et al.

important consequences for health and well-being, with two objects/people is closer to the self?”). Judgments prompted
generally more favorable outcomes for high-status individu- by Parkinson and colleagues (2014) were in reference to loca-
als (Erdem, Van Lenthe, Prins, Voorham, & Burdorf, 2016; tions of an anchor stimulus relative to a subsequent target stim-
Gianaros et al., 2007; Hackman & Farah, 2009; Hackman, ulus (e.g., “Is the object/timeframe/person in the target stimulus
closer/farther than in the anchor stimulus?”).
Farah, & Meaney, 2010; Hackman et al., 2015; Kim et al.,
4. If findings from Ly and colleagues (2011) are due to the
2013; McEwen & Gianaros, 2010; Reyes-Garcia et al., 2008;
value of ingroup members, it is possible that a similar finding
Reyes-García et  al., 2009; Taylor, Eisenberger, Saxbe, may also be observed in nonhuman primate species. One way
Lehman, & Lieberman, 2006; Wilkinson & Pickett, 2009). In to provide a clearer test of this hypothesis may be to replicate
light of growing social inequalities (Gilbert, 2014; Kochnar the above studies with ingroup and outgroup members varying
& Fry, 2014), a clearer conceptualization of both perceived in status. For nonhuman primates, ingroup and outgroup mem-
and perceiver social status and their consequences for social bers may come from the perceiver’s own group versus another
cognition is pressing. As emphasized in the current review, kin group, respectively.
it is hoped that the adoption of a comprehensive social neu- 5. These search results do not differentiate between studies
roscience framework integrating findings across disciplines examining the race or status of the target versus that of the per-
and methodologies should both clarify our current knowl- ceiver. The small number of studies on status overall suggests
that more research is needed on both perceived status and the
edge of how social status shapes our social lives and push
perceiver’s status. However, our impression of the literature on
the frontiers of social status research.
status is that it is more frequently focused on the perceiver’s
status than on perceived status (for relevant reviews focused
Declaration of Conflicting Interests on the former, see Hackman et al., 2010; Pornpattananangkul
The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest with et al., 2014; Swencionis & Fiske, 2014; Varnum, 2016). This
respect to their authorship or the publication of this article. appears to be especially the case in structural brain imaging
and developmental neuroscience research. As such, the relative
lack of work on perceived status in social neuroscience may be
Supplemental Material even greater than the numbers cited here would suggest.
Additional supporting information may be found online. 6. Although the present example relies on dominance and pres-
tige, the above distinctions should be relevant when consider-
ing any dimension of social status (e.g., financial status).
Notes
1. Although power plays an important role in dominance- References
based status acquisition and maintenance, we nonetheless cau- Abele, A. E., Cuddy, A. J. C., Judd, C. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y.
tion against equating dominance with power. Power implies a (2008). Fundamental dimensions of social judgment.
degree of control over material or social resources (Galinsky European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 1063–1065. doi:
et al., 2015). However, control over resources may not necessar- 10.1002/ejsp.574
ily be used to enhance one’s own status. Individuals preferring Abramovich, R. (1976). The relation of attention and proximity
a prestige-based approach to acquiring status may in fact avoid to rank in preschool children. In M. R. A. Larsen & R. R.
using their power to enhance or preserve status if it would be Larsen (Eds.), The social structure of attention (pp. 153–
perceived as overt coercion or manipulation (Case & Maner, 176). London, UK: Wiley.
2014; Henrich & Gil-White, 2001; Van Vugt, 2006). Abramovitch, R., & Grusec, J. E. (1978). Peer imitation in a natural
2. It may be tempting to consider warmth and competence as setting. Child Development, 49, 60–65. doi:10.2307/1128593
the key dimensions of human social status under which other Adolphs, R. (2009). The social brain: Neural basis of social
social dimensions (e.g., prestige, dominance, wealth) are sub- knowledge. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 693–716.
sumed. Although warmth and competence have considerable doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163514
explanatory power in impression formation, we would caution Adolphs, R. (2010). What does the amygdala contribute to social
against the extreme view that antecedents of these two dimen- cognition? Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,
sions are the key predictors of social status. In some cases, judg- 1191, 42–61. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05445.x
ments of warmth and competence may be better understood as Adolphs, R., & Spezio, M. (2006). Role of the amygdala in pro-
key evaluative consequences of perceived status (e.g., defined cessing visual social stimuli. Progress in Brain Research,
in terms of SES) rather than antecedents of status. Nonetheless, 156, 363–378. doi:10.1016/S0079-6123(06)56020-0
information regarding warmth and competence may factor into Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. New York, NY:
the determination of an individual’s status level. We consider Basic Books.
some evidence for this in the current section on prestige. Ames, D. L., & Fiske, S. T. (2013). Outcome dependency alters
3. This may explain the discrepancy observed in the neural cor- the neural substrates of impression formation. NeuroImage,
relates of distance judgments between the study by Yamakawa 83, 599–608. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.07.001
and colleagues (2009: SPL) and the study by Parkinson and Amodio, D. M. (2010). Can neuroscience advance social psycho-
colleagues (2014: IPL). Although both studies relied on com- logical theory? Social neuroscience for the behavioral social
parative judgments, the judgments prompted by Yamakawa and psychologist. Social Cognition, 28, 695–716. doi:10.1521/
colleagues (2009) were in reference to the self (e.g., “Which of soco.2010.28.6.695
Social Status and Person Perception 495

Anderson, C., & Kilduff, G. J. (2009a). The pursuit of status in Berger, J., Cohen, B. P., & Zelditch, M. (1972). Status character-
social groups. Current Directions in Psychological Science, istics and social interaction. American Sociological Review,
18, 295–298. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01655.x 37, 241–255. doi:10.2307/2093465
Anderson, C., & Kilduff, G. J. (2009b). Why do dominant Bergsieker, H. B., Shelton, J. N., & Richeson, J. A. (2010). To be
personalities attain influence in face-to-face groups? The liked versus respected: Divergent goals in interracial inter-
competence-signaling effects of trait dominance. Journal actions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99,
of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 491–503. 248–264. doi:10.1037/a0018474
doi:10.1037/a0014201 Berkman, E. T., & Cunningham, W. A. (2012). Research meth-
Anderson, J. R. (1998). Social stimuli and social rewards in pri- ods in social and affective neuroscience. In H. T. Reis &
mate learning and cognition. Behavioural Processes, 42, C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in person-
159–175. doi:10.1016/S0376-6357(97)00074-0 ality and social psychology (2nd ed., pp. 1–96). New York,
Andrews, M. W., Bhat, M. C., & Rosenblum, L. A. (1995). NY: Cambridge University Press.
Acquisition and long-term patterning of joystick selection Berridge, K. C., & Kringelbach, M. L. (2008). Affective neu-
of food-pellet vs social-video reward by Bonnet Macaques. roscience of pleasure: Reward in humans and animals.
Learning and Motivation, 26, 370–379. doi:10.1016/S0023- Psychopharmacology, 199, 457–480. doi:10.1007/s00213-
9690(05)80002-5 008-1099-6
Aquiloni, L., Gonçalves, V., Inghilesi, A. F., & Gherardi, F. Bhanji, J. P., & Delgado, M. R. (2014). The social brain and
(2012). Who’s what? Prompt recognition of social status in reward: Social information processing in the human striatum.
crayfish. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 66, 785–790. WIREs: Cognitive Science, 5, 61–73. doi:10.1002/wcs.1266
doi:10.1007/s00265-012-1326-3 Bird, C. M., Castelli, F., Malik, O., Frith, U., & Husain, M. (2004).
Aron, A. R., Robbins, T. W., & Poldrack, R. A. (2004). Inhibition The impact of extensive medial frontal lobe damage on
and the right inferior frontal cortex. Trends in Cognitive “theory of mind” and cognition. Brain, 127, 914–928.
Sciences, 8, 170–177. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.02.010 doi:10.1093/brain/awh108
Barrett, L., Gaynor, D., & Henzi, S. P. (2002). A dynamic interac- Blader, S. L., & Chen, Y.- R. (2012). Differentiating the effects
tion between aggression and grooming reciprocity among of status and power: A justice perspective. Journal
female chacma baboons. Animal Behaviour, 63, 1047– of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 994–1014.
1053. doi:10.1006/anbe.2002.3008 doi:10.1037/a0026651
Barrett, L., Henzi, S. P., Weingrill, T., Lycett, J. E., & Hill, R. A. Blader, S. L., Shirako, A., & Chen, Y.- R. (2016). Looking out
(1999). Market forces predict grooming reciprocity in female from the top: Differential effects of status and power on
baboons. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological perspective taking. Personality and Social Psychology
Sciences, 266, 665–670. doi:10.1098/rspb.1999.0687 Bulletin, 42, 723–737. doi:10.1177/0146167216636628
Bartholow, B. D., Fabiani, M., Gratton, G., & Bettencourt, B. Boehm, C. (2012). Ancestral hierarchy and conflict. Science,
A. (2001). A psychophysiological examination of cogni- 336, 844–847. doi:10.1126/science.1219961
tive processing of and affective responses to social expec- Boulton, M. J. (1996). Bullying in mixed sex groups of chil-
tancy violations. Psychological Science, 12, 197–204. dren. Educational Psychology, 16, 439–443. doi:10.1080/
doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00336 0144341960160408
Bauldry, S., Shanahan, M. J., Russo, R., Roberts, B. W., & Damian, Bradley, R. H., & Corwyn, R. F. (2002). Socioeconomic status
R. (2016). Attractiveness compensates for low status back- and child development. Annual Review of Psychology, 53,
ground in the prediction of educational attainment. PLoS 371–399. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135233
ONE, 11(6), e0155313. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0155313 Breen, R., & Jonsson, J. O. (2005). Inequality of opportunity in
Bault, N., Joffily, M., Rustichini, A., & Coricelli, G. (2011). Medial comparative perspective: Recent research on educational
prefrontal cortex and striatum mediate the influence of attainment and social mobility. Annual Review of Sociology,
social comparison on the decision process. Proceedings of 31, 223–243. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.31.041304.122232
the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 108, 16044–16049. Brent, L. J. N., Semple, S., MacLarnon, A., Ruiz-Lambides, A.,
doi:10.1073/pnas.1100892108 Gonzalez-Martinez, J., & Platt, M. L. (2014). Personality traits
Becker, H., Albera, L., Comon, P., Haardt, M., Birot, G., Wendling, in rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) are heritable but do
F., . . . Merlet, I. (2014). EEG extended source localization: not predict reproductive output. International Journal of
Tensor-based vs. conventional methods. NeuroImage, 96, Primatology, 35, 188–209. doi:10.1007/s10764-013-9724-6
143–157. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.03.043 Breton, A., Jerbi, K., Henaff, M.- A., Cheylus, A., Baudouin,
Bercovitch, F. B. (1986). Male rank and reproductive activity in J.- Y., Schmitz, C., . . . Van der Henst, J.- B. (2014). Face
Savanna baboons. International Journal of Primatology, 7, the hierarchy: ERP and oscillatory brain responses in social
533–550. doi:10.1007/BF02736660 rank processing. PLoS ONE, 9(3), e91451. doi:10.1371/jour
Bercovitch, F. B. (1988). Coalitions, cooperation and reproduc- nal.pone.0091451
tive tactics among adult male baboons. Animal Behaviour, Brito, N. H., & Noble, K. G. (2014). Socioeconomic status and
36, 1198–1209. doi:10.1016/S0003-3472(88)80079-4 structural brain development. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 8,
Bercovitch, F. B. (1991). Social stratification, social strategies, and Article 276. doi:10.3389/fnins.2014.00276
reproductive success in primates. Ethology and Sociobiology, Buchanan, T. W., Tranel, D., & Adophs, R. (2009). The human
12, 315–333. doi:10.1016/0162-3095(91)90023-J amygdala in social function. In P. J. Whalen & E. A. Phelps
496 Mattan et al.

(Eds.), The human amygdala (pp. 289–318). New York, Case, C. R., & Maner, J. K. (2014). Divide and conquer: When
NY: The Guilford Press. and why leaders undermine the cohesive fabric of their
Bulger, J. B. (1993). Dominance rank and access to estrous group. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107,
females in male savanna baboons. Behaviour, 127, 67–103. 1033–1050. doi:10.1037/a0038201
doi:10.1163/156853993X00434 Chance, M. R. A. (1967). Attention structure as the basis of pri-
Burmeister, S. S., Jarvis, E. D., & Fernald, R. D. (2005). Rapid mate rank orders. Man, 2, 503–518. doi:10.2307/2799336
behavioral and genomic responses to social oppor- Chase, I. D., Tovey, C., Spangler-Martin, D., & Manfredonia, M.
tunity. PLoS Biology, 3(11), e363. doi:10.1371/journal (2002). Individual differences versus social dynamics in the
.pbio.0030363 formation of animal dominance hierarchies. Proceedings
Cacioppo, J. T., Berntson, G. G., Sheridan, J. F., & McClintock, of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 99, 5744–5749.
M. K. (2000). Multilevel integrative analyses of human doi:10.1073/pnas.082104199
behavior: Social neuroscience and the complementing Cheney, D. L., & Seyfarth, R. M. (2008). Baboon metaphysics:
nature of social and biological approaches. Psychological The evolution of a social mind. Chicago, IL: University of
Bulletin, 126, 829–843. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.6.829 Chicago Press.
Cacioppo, J. T., Crites, S. L., Gardner, W. L., & Berntson, G. Cheng, J. T., & Tracy, J. L. (2013). The impact of wealth on
G. (1994). Bioelectrical echoes from evaluative categoriza- prestige and dominance rank relationships. Psychological
tions: I. A late positive brain potential that varies as a func- Inquiry, 24, 102–108. doi:10.1080/1047840X.2013.792576
tion of trait negativity and extremity. Journal of Personality Cheng, J. T., & Tracy, J. L. (2014). Toward a unified science of
and Social Psychology, 67, 115–125. doi:10.1037/0022- hierarchy: Dominance and prestige are two fundamental
3514.67.1.115 pathways to human social rank. In J. T. Cheng, J. L. Tracy,
Cacioppo, J. T., Tassinary, L. G., & Berntson, G. G. (2007). & C. Anderson (Eds.), The psychology of social status (pp.
Psychophysiological science: Interdisciplinary approaches 3–28). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-
to classic questions about the mind. In J. T. Cacioppo, L. G. 0867-7
Tassinary, & G. G. Berntson (Eds.), Handbook of psycho- Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., Foulsham, T., Kingstone, A., & Henrich,
physiology (3rd ed., pp. 1–16). New York, NY: Cambridge J. (2013). Two ways to the top: Evidence that dominance
University Press. and prestige are distinct yet viable avenues to social rank
Cairns, R. B., Cairns, B. D., Neckerman, H. J., Gest, S. D., & and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Gariepy, J.- L. (1988). Social networks and aggressive 104, 103–125. doi:10.1037/a0030398
behavior: Peer support or peer rejection? Developmental Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., & Henrich, J. (2010). Pride, personality,
Psychology, 24, 815–823. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.24.6.815 and the evolutionary foundations of human social status.
Capozzi, F., Becchio, C., Willemse, C., & Bayliss, A. P. (2016). Evolution & Human Behavior, 31, 334–347. doi:10.1016/j
Followers are not followed: Observed group interactions .evolhumbehav.2010.02.004
modulate subsequent social attention. Journal of Experi­ Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., Ho, S., & Henrich, J. (2016). Listen,
mental Psychology: General, 145, 531–535. doi:10.1037/ follow me: Dynamic vocal signals of dominance predict
xge0000167 emergent social rank in humans. Journal of Experimental
Carré, J. M., Campbell, J. A., Lozoya, E., Goetz, S. M. M., & Psychology: General, 145, 536–547. doi:10.1037/xge0000166
Welker, K. M. (2013). Changes in testosterone mediate the Chiao, J. Y. (2010). Neural basis of social status hierarchy across
effect of winning on subsequent aggressive behaviour. species. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 20, 803–809.
Psychoneuroendocrinology, 38, 2034–2041. doi:10.1016/ doi:10.1016/j.conb.2010.08.006
j.psyneuen.2013.03.008 Chiao, J. Y., Adams, R. B., Tse, P. U., Lowenthal, W. T.,
Carré, J. M., & McCormick, C. M. (2008). In your face: Facial Richeson, J. A., & Ambady, N. (2008). Knowing who’s boss:
metrics predict aggressive behaviour in the laboratory and FMRI and ERP investigations of social dominance percep-
in varsity and professional hockey players. Proceedings of tion. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 11, 201–214.
the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 275, 2651–2656. doi:10.1177/1368430207088038
doi:10.1098/rspb.2008.0873 Chiao, J. Y., Harada, T., Oby, E. R., Li, Z., Parrish, T., & Bridge,
Carré, J. M., McCormick, C. M., & Mondloch, C. J. (2009). D. J. (2009). Neural representations of social status hierar-
Facial structure is a reliable cue of aggressive behavior. chy in human inferior parietal cortex. Neuropsychologia,
Psychological Science, 20, 1194–1198. doi:10.1111/j.1467- 47, 354–363. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.09.023
9280.2009.02423.x Chib, V. S., Rangel, A., Shimojo, S., & O’Doherty, J. P. (2009).
Carré, J. M., & Olmstead, N. A. (2015). Social neuroendocrinol- Evidence for a common representation of decision val-
ogy of human aggression: Examining the role of compe- ues for dissimilar goods in human ventromedial prefron-
tition-induced testosterone dynamics. Neuroscience, 286, tal cortex. The Journal of Neuroscience, 29, 12315–12320.
171–186. doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2014.11.029 doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2575-09.2009
Carretié, L., Martín-Loeches, M., Hinojosa, A., & Mercado, F. Cikara, M., & Fiske, S. T. (2012). Stereotypes and Schadenfreude:
(2001). Emotion and attention interaction studied through Affective and physiological markers of pleasure at outgroup
event-related potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, misfortunes. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 3,
13, 1109–1128. doi:10.1162/089892901753294400 63–71. doi:10.1177/1948550611409245
Social Status and Person Perception 497

Cikara, M., & Fiske, S. T. (2013). Their pain, our pleasure: contextual threat cues. Journal of Experimental Social
Stereotype content and Schadenfreude. Annals of the Psychology, 47, 184–189. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.08.017
New York Academy of Sciences, 1299, 52–59. doi:10.1111/ Croft, K. E., Duff, M. C., Kovach, C. K., Anderson, S. W.,
nyas.12179 Adolphs, R., & Tranel, D. (2010). Detestable or marvel-
Cloutier, J., Ambady, N., Meagher, T., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. ous? Neuroanatomical correlates of character judgments.
(2012). The neural substrates of person perception: Neuropsychologia, 48, 1789–1801. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsy
Spontaneous use of financial and moral status knowledge. chologia.2010.03.001
Neuropsychologia, 50, 2371–2376. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsy Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2007). The BIAS
chologia.2012.06.010 map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes.
Cloutier, J., Cardenas-Iniguez, C., Gyurovski, I., Barakzai, A., & Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 631–648.
Li, T. (2016). Neuroimaging investigations of social status doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.4.631
and social hierarchies. In J. R. Absher & J. Cloutier (Eds.), Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2008). Warmth and
Neuroimaging personality, social cognition, and character competence as universal dimensions of social perception:
(pp. 187–203). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Academic The stereotype content model and the BIAS map. In M. P.
Press. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-800935-2.00009-9 Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychol-
Cloutier, J., & Gyurovski, I. (2013). Intraparietal sulcus activity dur- ogy (Vol. 40, pp. 61–149). Amsterdam, The Netherlands:
ing explicit self-referential social status judgments about others. Academic Press. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(07)00002-0
International Journal of Psychological Research, 6(SE), 68–79. Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., Kwan, V. S. Y., Glick, P., Leyens, J.-
Cloutier, J., & Gyurovski, I. (2014). Ventral medial prefrontal P., Bond, M. H., . . . Ziegler, R. (2009). Stereotype content
cortex and person evaluation: Forming impressions of oth- model across cultures: Towards universal similarities and
ers varying in financial and moral status. NeuroImage, 100, some differences. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48,
535–543. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.06.024 1–33. doi:10.1348/014466608X314935
Cloutier, J., Li, T., & Correll, J. (2014). The impact of childhood Cunningham, W. A., Johnson, M. K., Gatenby, J. C., Gore, J.
experience on amygdala response to perceptually familiar C., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Neural components of social
Black and White faces. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
26, 1992–2004. doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00605 85, 639–649. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.4.639
Cloutier, J., Li, T., Mišic, B., Correll, J., & Berman, M. G. (2016). Curhan, K. B., Levine, C. S., Markus, H. R., Kitayama, S., Park, J.,
Brain network activity during face perception: The impact Karasawa, M., . . . Ryff, C. D. (2014). Subjective and objective
of perceptual familiarity and individual differences in child- hierarchies and their relations to psychological well-being:
hood experience. Cerebral Cortex Advance online publica- A U.S./Japan comparison. Social Psychological & Personality
tion. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhw232. Science, 5, 855–864. doi:10.1177/1948550614538461
Cloutier, J., Norman, G. J., Li, T., & Berntson, G. G. (2013). Dalmaso, M., Pavan, G., Castelli, L., & Galfano, G. (2011). Social
Person perception and autonomic nervous system response: status gates social attention in humans. Biology Letters, 8,
The costs and benefits of possessing a high social status. 450–452. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2011.0881
Biological Psychology, 92, 301–305. doi:10.1016/j.biopsy Deaner, R. O., Goetz, S. M. M., Shattuck, K., & Schnotala, T.
cho.2012.09.006 (2012). Body weight, not facial width-to-height ratio, pre-
Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Coppotelli, H. (1982). Dimensions dicts aggression in pro hockey players. Journal of Research
and types of social status: A cross-age perspective. in Personality, 46, 235–238. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2012.01.005
Developmental Psychology, 18, 557–570. doi:10.1037//0012- Deaner, R. O., Khera, A. V., & Platt, M. L. (2005). Monkeys
1649.18.4.557 pay per view: Adaptive valuation of social images by rhe-
Coie, J. D., & Kupersmidt, J. B. (1983). A behavioral analysis of sus macaques. Current Biology, 15, 543–548. doi:10.1016/
emerging social status in boys’ groups. Child Development, j.cub.2005.01.044
54, 1400–1416. doi:10.2307/1129803 Dehaene, S., Piazza, M., Pinel, P., & Cohen, L. (2003). Three parietal
Cook, J. L., Den Ouden, H. E. M., Heyes, C. M., & Cools, R. circuits for number processing. Cognitive Neuropsychology,
(2014). The social dominance paradox. Current Biology, 20, 487–506. doi:10.1080/02643290244000239
24, 2812–2816. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2014.10.014 Delgado, M. R., Frank, R. H., & Phelps, E. A. (2005). Perceptions
Cools, R., Clark, L., Owen, A. M., & Robbins, T. W. (2002). of moral character modulate the neural systems of reward
Defining the neural mechanisms of probabilistic reversal during the trust game. Nature Neuroscience, 8, 1611–1618.
learning using event-related functional magnetic resonance doi:10.1038/nn1575
imaging. The Journal of Neuroscience, 22, 4563–4567. Del Giudice, M., Gangestad, S. W., & Kaplan, H. S. (2015).
Corbetta, M., Patel, G., & Shulman, G. L. (2008). The reori- Life history theory and evolutionary psychology. In
enting system of the human brain: From environment to D. M. Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psy-
theory of mind. Neuron, 58, 306–324. doi:10.1016/j.neu chology (2nd ed., pp. 88–114). New York, NY: Wiley.
ron.2008.04.017 doi:10.1002/9781119125563.evpsych102
Corbetta, M., & Shulman, G. L. (2002). Control of goal-directed DeWall, C. N., & Maner, J. K. (2008). High status men (but
and stimulus-driven attention in the brain. Nature Reviews not women) capture the eye of the beholder. Evolutionary
Neuroscience, 3, 201–215. doi:10.1038/nrn755 Psychology, 6, 328–341. doi:10.1177/147470490800600209
Correll, J., Wittenbrink, B., Park, B., Judd, C. M., & Goyle, A. Dodge, K. A. (1983). Behavioral antecedents of peer social status.
(2011). Dangerous enough: Moderating racial bias with Child Development, 54, 1386–1399. doi:10.2307/1129802
498 Mattan et al.

Dodge, K. A., Coie, J. D., Pettit, G. S., & Price, J. M. (1990). Peer Entwisle, D. R., Alexander, K. L., & Olson, L. S. (2005). First
status and aggression in boys’ groups: Developmental and grade and educational attainment by age 22: A new
contextual analyses. Child Development, 61, 1289–1309. story. American Journal of Sociology, 110, 1458–1502.
doi:10.2307/1130743 doi:10.1086/428444
Dovidio, J. F., & Ellyson, S. L. (1982). Decoding visual domi- Erdem, Ö., Van Lenthe, F. J., Prins, R. G., Voorham, T. A. J. J., &
nance: Attributions of power based on relative percentages Burdorf, A. (2016). Socioeconomic inequalities in psycho-
of looking while speaking and looking while listening. Social logical distress among urban adults: The moderating role of
Psychology Quarterly, 45, 106–113. doi:10.2307/3033933 neighborhood social cohesion. PLoS ONE, 11(6), e0157119.
Duncan, G. J., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Klebanov, P. K. (1994). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0157119
Economic deprivation and early childhood develop- Evans, G. W., & English, K. (2002). The environment of poverty:
ment. Child Development, 65, 296–318. doi:10.1111/j Multiple stressor exposure, psychophysiological stress, and
.1467-8624.1994.tb00752.x socioemotional adjustment. Child Development, 73, 1238–
Duncan, G. J., & Magnuson, K. (2012). Socioeconomic status 1248. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00469
and cognitive functioning: Moving from correlation to cau- Evans, G. W., Gonnella, C., Marcynyszyn, L. A., Gentile, L., &
sation. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, Salpekar, N. (2005). Chaos poverty and children’s socio-
3, 377–386. doi:10.1002/wcs.1176 emotional adjustment. Psychological Science, 16, 560–565.
Dunn, M. J., & Hill, A. (2014). Manipulated luxury-apartment doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01575.x
ownership enhances opposite-sex attraction in females but Exline, R. V., Ellyson, S. L., & Long, B. (1975). Visual behavior
not males. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 12, 1–17. as an aspect of power role relationships. In P. Pliner (Ed.),
doi:10.1556/JEP.12.2014.1.1 Nonverbal communication of aggression (pp. 21–52). New
Dunn, M. J., & Searle, R. (2010). Effect of manipulated prestige- York, NY: Plenum Press. doi:10.1007/978-1-4684-2835-3
car ownership on both sex attractiveness ratings. British Fareri, D. S., & Delgado, M. R. (2014). Differential reward
Journal of Psychology, 101, 69–80. doi:10.1348/0007126 responses during competition against in- and out-of-net-
09X417319 work others. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience,
Dvash, J., Gilam, G., Ben-Ze’ev, A., Hendler, T., & Shamay- 9, 412–420. doi:10.1093/scan/nst006
Tsoory, S. G. (2010). The envious brain: The neural basis of Farrow, T. F. D., Jones, S. C., Kaylor-Hughes, C. J., Wilkinson,
social comparison. Human Brain Mapping, 31, 1741–1750. I. D., Woodruff, P. W. R., Hunter, M. D., & Spence, S. A.
doi:10.1002/hbm.20972 (2011). Higher or lower? The functional anatomy of per-
Edwards, C. A. (1994). Leadership in groups of school-age girls. ceived allocentric social hierarchies. NeuroImage, 57,
Developmental Psychology, 30, 920–927. doi:10.1037/0012- 1552–1560. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.05.069
1649.30.6.920 Fellows, L. K. (2007). Advances in understanding ventro-
Eimer, M. (2011). The face-sensitive N170 component of the medial prefrontal function: The accountant joins the
event-related brain potential. In A. J. Calder, G. Rhodes, M. executive. Neurology, 68, 991–995. doi:10.1212/01
Johnson, & J. V Haxby (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of face .wnl.0000257835.46290.57
perception (pp. 329–344). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Fellows, L. K., & Farah, M. J. (2007). The role of ventrome-
Press. dial prefrontal cortex in decision making: Judgment under
Eimer, M., Holmes, A., & McGlone, F. P. (2003). The role of uncertainty or judgment per se? Cerebral Cortex, 17, 2669–
spatial attention in the processing of facial expression: An 2674. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhl176
ERP study of rapid brain responses to six basic emotions. Fiske, S. T. (1993). Controlling other people: The impact of
Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 3, 97–110. power on stereotyping. American Psychologist, 48, 621–
doi:10.3758/CABN.3.2.97 628. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.48.6.621
Ellemers, N., Wilke, H., & Van Knippenberg, A. (1993). Effects Fiske, S. T. (2010). Interpersonal stratification: Status, power,
of the legitimacy of low group or individual status on and subordination. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G.
individual and collective status-enhancement strategies. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 941–
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 766–778. 982). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.64.5.766 Fiske, S. T. (2015). Grolar bears, social class, and policy rel-
Elliott, R., Friston, K. J., & Dolan, R. J. (2000). Dissociable neu- evance: Extraordinary agendas for the emerging 21st cen-
ral responses in human reward systems. The Journal of tury. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 551–559.
Neuroscience, 20, 6159–6165. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2117
Ellyson, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1985). Power, dominance, and Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal
nonverbal behavior: Basic concepts and issues. In S. L. dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence.
Ellyson & J. F. Dovidio (Eds.), Power, dominance, and Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 77–83. doi:10.1016/j
nonverbal behavior (pp. 1–27). New York, NY: Springer. .tics.2006.11.005
doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-5106-4_1 Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of
Englander, Z. A., Haidt, J., & Morris, J. P. (2012). Neural basis (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth
of moral elevation demonstrated through inter-subject syn- respectively follow from perceived status and competition.
chronization of cortical activity during free-viewing. PLoS Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902.
ONE, 7(6), e39384. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0039384 doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878
Social Status and Person Perception 499

Fiske, S. T., Dupree, C. H., Nicolas, G., & Swencionis, J. K. Fujishiro, K., Xu, J., & Gong, F. (2010). What does “occupation”
(2016). Status, power, and intergroup relations: The per- represent as an indicator of socioeconomic status? Exploring
sonal is the societal. Current Opinion in Psychology, 11, occupational prestige and health. Social Science & Medicine,
44–48. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.05.012 71, 2100–2107. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.09.026
Fiske, S. T., & Markus, H. R. (2012). Facing social class: How Gable, P. A., & Adams, D. L. (2013). Nonaffective moti-
societal rank influences social interaction. New York, NY: vation modulates the sustained LPP (1,000-2,000ms).
Russell Sage Foundation. Psychophysiology, 50, 1251–1254. doi:10.1111/psyp.12135
Flagan, T., & Beer, J. S. (2013). Three ways in which mid- Galak, J., Gray, K., Elbert, I., & Strohminger, N. (2016). Trickle-
line regions contribute to self-evaluation. Frontiers in down preferences: Preferential conformity to high sta-
Human Neuroscience, 7, Article 450. doi:10.3389/fnhum tus peers in fashion choices. PLoS ONE, 11(5), e0153448.
.2013.00450 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0153448
Fliessbach, K., Weber, B., Trautner, P., Dohmen, T., Sunde, U., Galinsky, A. D., Rucker, D. D., & Magee, J. C. (2015). Power:
Elger, C. E., & Falk, A. (2007). Social comparison affects Past findings, present considerations, and future direc-
reward-related brain activity in the human ventral striatum. tions. In M. Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver, J. A. Simpson, & J. F.
Science, 318, 1305–1308. doi:10.1126/science.1145876 Dovidio (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psy-
Flynn, F. J., Reagans, R. E., Amanatullah, E. T., & Ames, D. R. chology (Vol. 3, pp. 421–460). Washington, DC: American
(2006). Helping one’s way to the top: Self-monitors achieve Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/14344-016
status by helping others and knowing who helps whom. Garandeau, C. F., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2006). From indirect
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 1123– aggression to invisible aggression: A conceptual view on bul-
1137. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.6.1123 lying and peer group manipulation. Aggression and Violent
Foulsham, T., Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., Henrich, J., & Kingstone, Behavior, 11, 641–654. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2005.08.004
A. (2010). Gaze allocation in a dynamic situation: Effects Gianaros, P. J., Horenstein, J. A., Cohen, S., Matthews, K.
of social status and speaking. Cognition, 117, 319–331. A., Brown, S. M., Flory, J. D., . . . Hariri, A. R. (2007).
doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2010.09.003 Perigenual anterior cingulate morphology covaries with
Fox, E., Russo, R., Bowles, R., & Dutton, K. (2001). Do threat- perceived social standing. Social Cognitive and Affective
ening stimuli draw or hold visual attention in subclinical Neuroscience, 2, 161–173. doi:10.1093/scan/nsm013
anxiety? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, Gilbert, D. L. (2014). The American class structure in an age of
681–700. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.130.4.681 growing inequality. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Fox, E., Russo, R., & Dutton, K. (2002). Attentional bias for Gläscher, J., Adolphs, R., Damasio, H., Bechara, A., Rudrauf,
threat: Evidence for delayed disengagement from emotional D., Calamia, M., . . . Tranel, D. (2012). Lesion mapping
faces. Cognition & Emotion, 16, 355–379. doi:10.1080/ of cognitive control and value-based decision mak-
02699930143000527 ing in the prefrontal cortex. Proceedings of the National
Fragale, A. R., Overbeck, J. R., & Neale, M. A. (2011). Resources Academy of Sciences, USA, 109, 14681–14686. doi:10.1073/
versus respect: Social judgments based on targets’ power pnas.1206608109
and status positions. Journal of Experimental Social Goodwin, G. P., Piazza, J., & Rozin, P. (2014). Moral charac-
Psychology, 47, 767–775. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.03.006 ter predominates in person perception and evaluation.
Frank, R., & Silk, J. (2009). Impatient traders or contingent recip- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 148–168.
rocators? Evidence for the extended time-course of groom- doi:10.1037/a0034726
ing exchanges in baboons. Behaviour, 146, 1123–1135. doi: Griskevicius, V., Ackerman, J. M., Cantú, S. M., Delton, A.
10.1163/156853909X406455 W., Robertson, T. E., Simpson, J. A., . . . Tybur, J. M.
Freeman, J. B., Penner, A. M., Saperstein, A., Scheutz, M., & (2013). When the economy falters, do people spend or
Ambady, N. (2011). Looking the part: Social status cues save? Responses to resource scarcity depend on child-
shape race perception. PLoS ONE, 6(9), e25107. doi:10.1371/ hood environments. Psychological Science, 24, 197–205.
journal.pone.0025107 doi:10.1177/0956797612451471
Freeman, J. B., Rule, N. O., Adams, R. B., & Ambady, N. (2009). Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Delton, A. M., & Robertson, T.
Culture shapes a mesolimbic response to signals of dominance E. (2011). The influence of morality and socioeconomic
and subordination that associates with behavior. NeuroImage, status on risk and delayed rewards: A life history theory
47, 353–359. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.04.038 approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
French, D. C., Waas, G. A., Stright, A. L., & Baker, J. A. (1986). 100, 1015–1026. doi:10.1037/a0022403
Leadership asymmetries in mixed-age children’s groups. Grosenick, L., Clement, T. S., & Fernald, R. D. (2007). Fish can
Child Development, 57, 1277–1283. doi:10.2307/1130450 infer social rank by observation alone. Nature, 445, 429–
Friston, K. J., Buechel, C., Fink, G. R., Morris, J., Rolls, E., & 432. doi:10.1038/nature05646
Dolan, R. J. (1997). Psychophysiological and modulatory Gurven, M., & von Rueden, C. (2006). Hunting, social status and
interactions in neuroimaging. NeuroImage, 6, 218–229. biological fitness. Social Biology, 53, 81–99. doi:10.1080/
doi:10.1006/nimg.1997.0291 19485565.2006.9989118
Frith, C. D., & Frith, U. (2012). Mechanisms of social cognition. Gusnard, D. A., Akbudak, E., Shulman, G. L., & Raichle, M. E.
Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 287–313. doi:10.1146/ (2001). Medial prefrontal cortex and self-referential men-
annurev-psych-120710-100449 tal activity: Relation to a default mode of brain function.
500 Mattan et al.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 98, Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1402–1413. doi:10.1177/
4259–4264. doi:10.1073/pnas.071043098 0146167206291006
Gyurovski, I. I., Kubota, J. T., Cardenas-Iniguez, C., & Cloutier, Hare, B., & Tomasello, M. (2004). Chimpanzees are more skilful
J. (in press). An ERP investigation of status-based evalua- in competitive than in cooperative cognitive tasks. Animal
tion. Social Neuroscience. Behaviour, 68, 571–581. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2003.11.011
Haaker, J., Molapour, T., & Olsson, A. (2016). Conditioned Hawley, P. H. (1999). The ontogenesis of social dominance:
social dominance threat: Observation of others’ social A strategy-based evolutionary perspective. Developmental
dominance biases threat learning. Social Cognitive and Review, 19, 97–132. doi:10.1006/drev.1998.0470
Affective Neuroscience, 11(10), 1627–1637. doi:10.1093/ Hawley, P. H. (2002). Social dominance and prosocial and
scan/nsw074 coercive strategies of resource control in preschoolers.
Hackman, D. A., & Farah, M. J. (2009). Socioeconomic status International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26, 167–
and the developing brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13, 176. doi:1080/01650250042000726
65–73. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2008.11.003 Hawley, P. H., Johnson, S. E., Mize, J. A., & McNamara,
Hackman, D. A., Farah, M. J., & Meaney, M. J. (2010). K. A. (2007). Physical attractiveness in preschool-
Socioeconomic status and the brain: Mechanistic insights ers: Relationships with power, status, aggression and
from human and animal research. Nature Reviews social skills. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 499–521.
Neuroscience, 11, 651–659. doi:10.1038/nrn2897 doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2007.04.001
Hackman, D. A., Gallop, R., Evans, G. W., & Farah, M. J. Hays, N. A., & Bendersky, C. (2015). Not all inequality is created
(2015). Socioeconomic status and executive function: equal: Effects of status versus power hierarchies on com-
Developmental trajectories and mediation. Developmental petition for upward mobility. Journal of Personality and
Science, 18, 686–702. doi:10.1111/desc.12246 Social Psychology, 108, 867–882. doi:10.1037/pspi0000017
Halevy, N., Chou, E. Y., Cohen, T. R., & Livingston, R. W. (2012). Hazen, N. L., & Black, B. (1989). Preschool peer communication
Status conferral in intergroup social dilemmas: Behavioral skills: The role of social status and interaction context. Child
antecedents and consequences of prestige and dominance. Development, 60, 867–876. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1989.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 351–366. tb03519.x
doi:10.1037/a0025515 Heberlein, A., Padon, A., Gillihan, S., Farah, M., & Fellows,
Halgren, E., & Marinkovic, K. (1995). Neurophysiological net- L. (2008). Ventromedial frontal lobe plays a critical role
works integrating human emotions. In M. S. Gazzaniga in facial emotion recognition. Journal of Cognitive
(Ed.), The cognitive neurosciences (pp. 1137–1151). Neuroscience, 20, 721–733. doi:10.1162/jocn.2008.20049
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Heeger, D. J., & Ress, D. (2002). What does fMRI tell us about
Hall, J. A., Coats, E. J., & LeBeau, L. S. (2005). Nonverbal behavior neuronal activity? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 3, 142–151.
and the vertical dimension of social relations. Psychological doi:10.1038/nrn730
Bulletin, 131, 898–924. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.898 Hehman, E., Leitner, J. B., & Freeman, J. B. (2014). The
Hallett, M. (2007). Transcranial magnetic stimulation: A primer. face-time continuum: Lifespan changes in facial width-
Neuron, 55, 187–199. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2007.06.026 to-height ratio impact aging-associated perceptions.
Hamilton, L. D., Carré, J. M., Mehta, P. H., Olmstead, N., & Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 1624–1636.
Whitaker, J. D. (2015). Social neuroendocrinology of status: doi:10.1177/0146167214552791
A review and future directions. Adaptive Human Behavior Hellström, A., & Tekle, J. (1994). Person perception through
and Physiology, 1, 202–230. doi:10.1007/s40750-015-0025-5 facial photographs: Effects of glasses, hair, and beard on
Hamlin, J. K., & Wynn, K. (2011). Young infants prefer proso- judgments of occupation and personal qualities. European
cial to antisocial others. Cognitive Development, 26, 30–39. Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 693–705. doi:10.1002/
doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2010.09.001 ejsp.2420240606
Hamlin, J. K., Wynn, K., & Bloom, P. (2010). Three-month- Henri-Bhargava, A., Simioni, A., & Fellows, L. K. (2012).
olds show a negativity bias in their social evaluations. Ventromedial frontal lobe damage disrupts the accuracy,
Developmental Science, 13, 923–929. doi:10.1111/j.1467- but not the speed, of value-based preference judgments.
7687.2010.00951.x Neuropsychologia, 50, 1536–1542. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsy
Hanson, J. L., Chandra, A., Wolfe, B. L., & Pollak, S. D. (2011). chologia.2012.03.006
Association between income and the hippocampus. PLoS Henrich, J., & Gil-White, F. J. (2001). The evolution of prestige:
ONE, 6(5), e18712. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0018712 Freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing
Hanson, J. L., Hair, N., Shen, D. G., Shi, F., Gilmore, J. H., the benefits of cultural transmission. Evolution & Human
Wolfe, B. L., & Pollak, S. D. (2013). Family poverty affects Behavior, 22, 165–196. doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(00)00071-4
the rate of human infant brain growth. PLoS ONE, 8(12), Henzi, S. P., Barrett, L., Gaynor, D., Greeff, J., Weingrill, A.,
e80954. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0080954 & Hill, R. A. (2003). Effect of resource competition on
Harding, R. S. O. (1980). Agonism, ranking, and the social behav- the long-term allocation of grooming by female Baboons:
ior of adult male baboons. American Journal of Physical Evaluating Seyfarth’s model. Animal Behaviour, 66, 931–
Anthropology, 53, 203–216. doi:10.1002/ajpa.1330530205 938. doi:10.1006/anbe.2003.2244
Hardy, C. L., & Van Vugt, M. (2006). Nice guys finish first: Herzog, A. R., Franks, M. M., Markus, H. R., & Holmberg, D.
The competitive altruism hypothesis. Personality and (1998). Activities and well-being in older age: Effects of
Social Status and Person Perception 501

self-concept and educational attainment. Psychology and processing. Social Neuroscience, 5, 133–147. doi:10.1080/
Aging, 13, 179–185. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.13.2.179 17470910903202559
Hess, U., Blairy, S., & Kleck, R. E. (2000). The influence of facial Jones, B. C., DeBruine, L. M., Little, A. C., Watkins, C. D., &
emotion displays, gender, and ethnicity on judgments of Feinberg, D. R. (2011). “Eavesdropping” and perceived
dominance and affiliation. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, male dominance rank in humans. Animal Behaviour, 81,
24, 265–283. doi:10.1023/A:1006623213355 1203–1208. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.03.003
Hoff, E. (2003). The specificity of environmental influence: Jones, B. C., DeBruine, L. M., Main, J. C., Little, A. C., Welling,
Socioeconomic status affects early vocabulary development L. L. M., Feinberg, D. R., & Tiddeman, B. P. (2010).
via maternal speech. Child Development, 74, 1368–1378. Facial cues of dominance modulate the short-term gaze-
doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00612 cuing effect in human observers. Proceedings of the Royal
Hoffman, E., McCabe, K., Shachat, K., & Smith, V. (1994). Society B: Biological Sciences, 277, 617–624. doi:10.1098/
Preferences, property rights, and anonymity in bargain- rspb.2009.1575
ing games. Games and Economic Behavior, 7, 346–380. Jones, D. C. (1984). Dominance and affiliation as factors in
doi:10.1006/game.1994.1056 the social organization of same-sex groups of elementary
Hogeveen, J., Inzlicht, M., & Obhi, S. S. (2014). Power changes school children. Ethology and Sociobiology, 5, 193–202.
how the brain responds to others. Journal of Experimental doi:10.1016/0162-3095(84)90023-2
Psychology: General, 143, 755–762. doi:10.1037/a0033477 Jost, J. T., & Burgess, D. (2000). Attitudinal ambivalence and
Hold, B. C. L. (1976). Attention structure and rank specific the conflict between group and system justification motives
behavior in preschool children. In M. R. A. Chance & in low status groups. Personality and Social Psychology
R. R. Larsen (Eds.), The social structure of attention (pp. Bulletin, 26, 293–305. doi:10.1177/0146167200265003
177–202). London, UK: Wiley. Jost, J. T., & Hunyady, O. (2005). Antecedents and conse-
Holoien, D. S., & Fiske, S. T. (2013). Downplaying positive quences of system-justifying ideologies. Current Directions
impressions: Compensation between warmth and compe- in Psychological Science, 14, 114–118. doi:10.1177/
tence in impression management. Journal of Experimental 03063127067078012
Social Psychology, 49, 33–41. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2012.09.001 Kalma, A. P., Visser, L., & Peeters, A. (1993). Sociable and
Hornak, J., Rolls, E. T., & Wade, D. (1996). Face and voice aggressive dominance: Personality differences in leader-
expression identification inpatients with emotional and ship style? Leadership Quarterly, 4, 45–64. doi:10.1016/
behavioural changes following ventral frontal lobe dam- 1048-9843(93)90003-C
age. Neuropsychologia, 34, 247–261. doi:10.1016/0028- Kanter, R. M. (1977). Some effects of proportions on group life:
3932(95)00106-9 Skewed sex ratios and responses to token women. American
Horner, V. (2010). The cultural mind of chimpanzees: How Journal of Sociology, 82, 965–990. doi:10.1086/226425
social tolerance can shape the transmission of culture. In Karafin, M. S., Tranel, D., & Adolphs, R. (2004). Dominance
T. Matsuzawa, J. Goodall, E. Lonsdorf, & S. R. Ross (Eds.), attributions following damage to the ventromedial prefron-
The mind of the chimpanzee: Ecological and experimen- tal cortex. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 1796–
tal perspectives (pp. 101–115). Chicago, IL: University of 1804. doi:10.1162/0898929042947856
Chicago Press. Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power,
Hosokawa, T., & Watanabe, M. (2012). Prefrontal neurons rep- approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110, 265–
resent winning and losing during competitive video shoot- 284. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.265
ing games between monkeys. The Journal of Neuroscience, Kervyn, N., Judd, C. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2009). You want to
32, 7662–7671. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.6479-11.2012 appear competent? Be mean! You want to appear sociable?
Ikemoto, S., & Panksepp, J. (1999). The role of nucleus accum- Be lazy! Group differentiation and the compensation effect.
bens dopamine in motivated behavior. Brain Research Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 363–367.
Reviews, 31, 6–41. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.08.006
Imhoff, R., Woelki, J., Hanke, S., & Dotsch, R. (2013). Warmth Kervyn, N., Yzerbyt, V., & Judd, C. M. (2010). Compensation
and competence in your face! Visual encoding of ste- between warmth and competence: Antecedents and con-
reotype content. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, Article 386. sequences of a negative relation between the two funda-
doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00386 mental dimensions of social perception. European Review
Ito, T. A., & Bartholow, B. D. (2009). The neural corre- of Social Psychology, 21, 155–187. doi:10.1080/13546805
lates of race. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13, 524–531. .2010.517997
doi:10.1016/j.tics.2009.10.002 Kervyn, N., Yzerbyt, V. Y., Judd, C. M., & Nunes, A. (2009). A
Ito, T. A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2000). Electrophysiological evi- question of compensation: The social life of the fundamen-
dence of implicit and explicit categorization processes. tal dimensions of social perception. Journal of Personality
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 660–676. and Social Psychology, 96, 828–842. doi:10.1037/a0013320
doi:10.1006/jesp.2000.1430 Kim, P., Evans, G. W., Angstadt, M., Ho, S. S., Sripada, C.
Izuma, K., Saito, D. N., & Sadato, N. (2008). Processing of social S., Swain, J. E., . . . Phan, K. L. (2013). Effects of child-
and monetary rewards in the human striatum. Neuron, 58, hood poverty and chronic stress on emotion regulatory
284–294. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2008.03.020 brain function in adulthood. Proceedings of the National
Izuma, K., Saito, D. N., & Sadato, N. (2010). The roles of Academy of Sciences, USA, 110, 18442–18447. doi:10.1073/
the medial prefrontal cortex and striatum in reputation pnas.1308240110
502 Mattan et al.

Kirsch, P., Schienle, A., Stark, R., Sammer, G., Blecker, C., Walter, La Freniere, P., & Charlesworth, W. R. (1983). Dominance,
B., . . . Vaitl, D. (2003). Anticipation of reward in a nona- attention, and affiliation in a preschool group: A nine-
versive differential conditioning paradigm and the brain month longitudinal study. Ethology and Sociobiology, 4,
reward system: An event-related fMRI study. NeuroImage, 55–67. doi:10.1016/0162-3095(83)90030-4
20, 1086–1095. doi:10.1016/S1053-8119(03)00381-1 Lareau, A., & Conley, D. (2008). Social class. New York, NY:
Kochnar, R., & Fry, R. (2014). Wealth inequality has widened Russell Sage Foundation.
along racial, ethnic lines since end of Great Recession. Lawson, G. M., Duda, J. T., Avants, B. B., Wu, J., & Farah, M.
Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/ J. (2013). Associations between children’s socioeconomic
12/racial-wealth-gaps-great-recession/ status and prefrontal cortical thickness. Developmental
Koski, J. E., Xie, H., & Olson, I. R. (2015). Understanding social Science, 16, 641–652. doi:10.1111/desc.12096
hierarchies: The neural and psychological foundations of Leopold, A., Krueger, F., Dal monte, O., Pardini, M., Pulaski,
status perception. Social Neuroscience, 10, 527–550. doi:10 S. J., Solomon, J., & Grafman, J. (2012). Damage to the left
.1080/17470919.2015.1013223 ventromedial prefrontal cortex impacts affective theory of
Koster, E. H. W., Crombez, G., Van Damme, S., Verschuere, B., & mind. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7, 871–
De Houwer, J. (2004). Does imminent threat capture and hold 880. doi:10.1093/scan/nsr071
attention? Emotion, 4, 312–317. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.4.3.312 Levy, B. J., & Wagner, A. D. (2011). Cognitive control and
Kraus, M. W., & Chen, T.- W. D. (2013). A winning smile? Smile right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex: Reflexive reorienting,
intensity, physical dominance, and fighter performance. motor inhibition, and action updating. Annals of the New
Emotion, 13, 270–279. doi:10.1037/a0030745 York Academy of Sciences, 1224, 40–62. doi:10.1111/j.1749-
Kraus, M. W., & Keltner, D. (2009). Signs of socioeconomic 6632.2011.05958.x
status: A thin-slicing approach. Psychological Science, 20, Lieberman, M. D. (2007). Social cognitive neuroscience: A
99–106. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02251.x review of core processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 58,
Kraus, M. W., & Mendes, W. B. (2014). Sartorial symbols of 259–289. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085654
social class elicit class-consistent behavioral and physiologi- Liuzza, M. T., Vecchione, M., Dentale, F., Crostella, F.,
cal responses: A dyadic approach. Journal of Experimental Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Aglioti, S. M. (2016). A
Psychology: General, 143, 2330–2340. doi:10.1037/xge0000023 look into the ballot box: Gaze following conveys informa-
Kraus, M. W., Tan, J. J. X., & Tannenbaum, M. B. (2013). The social tion about implicit attitudes toward politicians. Quarterly
ladder: A rank-based perspective on social class. Psychological Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 209–216. doi:10.10
Inquiry, 24, 81–96. doi:10.1080/1047840X.2013.778803 80/17470218.2012.754909
Kriegeskorte, N., Mur, M., & Bandettini, P. (2008). Representational Logothetis, N. K. (2008). What we can do and what we can-
similarity analysis: Connecting the branches of systems not do with fMRI. Nature, 453, 869–878. doi:10.1038/
neuroscience. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 2(4), 4. nature06976
doi:10.3389/neuro.06.004.2008 Luby, J., Belden, A., Botteron, K., Marrus, N., Harms, M. P.,
Krishnan, A., Williams, L. J., McIntosh, A. R., & Abdi, H. Babb, C., . . . Barch, D. (2013). The effects of poverty on
(2011). Partial Least Squares (PLS) methods for neuroim- childhood brain development. JAMA Pediatrics, 167, 1135–
aging: A tutorial and review. NeuroImage, 56, 455–475. 1142. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.3139
doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.07.034 Ly, M., Haynes, M. R., Barter, J. W., Weinberger, D. R., &
Kubota, J. T., & Ito, T. A. (2007). Multiple cues in social per- Zink, C. F. (2011). Subjective socioeconomic status pre-
ception: The time course of processing race and facial dicts human ventral striatal responses to social status
expression. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, information. Current Biology, 21, 794–797. doi:10.1016/j
738–752. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.10.023 .cub.2011.03.050
Kubota, J. T., & Ito, T. A. (2009). You were always on my mind: Lyle, H. F., & Smith, E. A. (2014). The reputational and social
How event-related brain potentials inform impression for- network benefits of prosociality in an Andean community.
mation research. In T. D. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of preju- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 111,
dice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 333–346). New 4820–4825. doi:10.1073/pnas.1318372111
York, NY: Psychology Press. Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Social hierarchy: The
Kubota, J. T., & Ito, T. (2016). Rapid race perception despite indi- self reinforcing nature of power and status. The Academy
viduation and accuracy goals. Social Neuroscience. Advance of Management Annals, 2, 351–398. doi:10.1080/19416520
online publication. doi:10.1080/17470919.2016.1182585 802211628
Kuhn, G., Teszka, R., Tenaw, N., & Kingstone, A. (2016). Don’t Maner, J. K., DeWall, C. N., & Gailliot, M. T. (2008). Selective atten-
be fooled! Attentional responses to social cues in a face-to- tion to signs of success: Social dominance and early stage
face and video magic trick reveals greater top-down control interpersonal perception. Personality and Social Psychology
for overt than covert attention. Cognition, 146, 136–142. Bulletin, 34, 488–501. doi:10.1177/0146167207311910
doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2015.08.005 Maner, J. K., Gailliot, M. T., Butz, D. A., & Peruche, B. M.
Kumaran, D., Melo, H. L., & Duzel, E. (2012). The emergence (2007). Power, risk, and the status quo: Does power
and representation of knowledge about social and non- promote riskier or more conservative decision making?
social hierarchies. Neuron, 76, 653–666. doi:10.1016/j.neu Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 451–462.
ron.2012.09.035 doi:10.1177/0146167206297405
Social Status and Person Perception 503

Maner, J. K., & Mead, N. L. (2010). The essential tension between aging studies. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience,
leadership and power: When leaders sacrifice group goals 8, 285–299. doi:10.1093/scan/nsr090
for the sake of self-interest. Journal of Personality and Mignault, A., & Chaudhuri, A. (2003). The many faces of a
Social Psychology, 99, 482–497. doi:10.1037/a0018559 neutral face: Head tilt and perception of dominance and
Marsh, A. A., Blair, K. S., Jones, M. M., Soliman, N., & Blair, emotion. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 27, 111–132.
R. J. R. (2009). Dominance and submission: The ventrolat- doi:10.1023/A:1023914509763
eral prefrontal cortex and responses to status cues. Journal Mitchell, G., & Maple, T. L. (1985). Dominance in nonhuman
of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21, 713–724. doi:10.1162/jocn primates. In S. L. Ellyson & J. F. Dovidio (Eds.), Power,
.2009.21052 dominance, and nonverbal behavior (pp. 49–66). New
Martens, J. P., & Tracy, J. L. (2012). The emotional origins of a York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-5106-4_3
social learning bias: Does the pride expression cue copy- Montepare, J. M., & Zebrowitz, L. A. (1998). Person perception
ing? Social Psychological & Personality Science, 4, 492–499. comes of age: The salience and significance of age in social
doi:10.1177/1948550612457958 judgments. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental
Maruska, K. P., & Fernald, R. D. (2010). Behavioral and physi- social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 93–161). Cambridge, MA:
ological plasticity: Rapid changes during social ascent in an Academic Press.
African cichlid fish. Hormones and Behavior, 58, 230–240. Moran, J. M., Macrae, C. N., Heatherton, T. F., Wyland, C. L.,
doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2010.03.011 & Kelley, W. M. (2006). Neuroanatomical evidence for dis-
Mason, M., Magee, J. C., & Fiske, S. T. (2014). Neural sub- tinct cognitive and affective components of self. Journal
strates of social status inference: Roles of medial prefrontal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 1586–1594. doi:10.1162/
cortex and superior temporal sulcus. Journal of Cognitive jocn.2006.18.9.1586
Neuroscience, 26, 1131–1140. doi:10.1162/jocn Moran, J. M., & Zaki, J. (2013). Functional neuroimaging and
Mazur, A. (1985). A biosocial model of status in face-to-face psychology: What have you done for me lately? Journal
primate groups. Social Forces, 64, 377–402. doi:10.1016/j of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25, 834–842. doi:10.1162/
.sbspro.2013.06.508 jocn_a_00380
Mazur, A., & Booth, A. (1998). Testosterone and dominance Mullen, B., Brown, R., & Smith, C. (1992). Ingroup bias as a
in men. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 21, 353–397. function of salience, relevance, and status: An integra-
doi:10.1017/S0140525X98001228 tion. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 103–122.
McEwen, B. S., & Gianaros, P. J. (2010). Central role of the doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420220202
brain in stress and adaptation: Links to socioeconomic Muscatell, K. A., Morelli, S. A., Falk, E. B., Way, B. M., Pfeifer,
status, health, and disease. Annals of the New York J. H., Galinsky, A. D., . . . Eisenberger, N. I. (2012). Social
Academy of Sciences, 1186, 190–222. doi:10.1111/j.1749- status modulates neural activity in the mentalizing net-
6632.2009.05331.x work. NeuroImage, 60, 1771–1777. doi:10.1016/j.neuroim-
McIntosh, A. R., Chau, W. K., & Protzner, A. B. (2004). age.2012.01.080.Social
Spatiotemporal analysis of event-related fMRI data using Naito, E., Scheperjans, F., Eickhoff, S. B., Amunts, K., Roland,
partial least squares. NeuroImage, 23, 764–775. doi:10.1016/j P. E., Zilles, K., & Ehrsson, H. H. (2008). Human supe-
.neuroimage.2004.05.018 rior parietal lobule is involved in somatic perception of
McIntosh, A. R., & Lobaugh, N. J. (2004). Partial least squares bimanual interaction with an external object. Journal of
analysis of neuroimaging data: Applications and advances. Neurophysiology, 99, 695–703. doi:10.1152/jn.00529.2007
NeuroImage, 23, S250–S263. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage Navarrete, C. D., McDonald, M. M., Molina, L. E., & Sidanius, J.
.2004.07.020 (2010). Prejudice at the nexus of race and gender: An out-
Mead, N. L., & Maner, J. K. (2012a). On keeping your enemies group male target hypothesis. Journal of Personality and
close: Powerful leaders seek proximity to ingroup power Social Psychology, 98, 933–945. doi:10.1037/a0017931
threats. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, Neave, N., Laing, S., Fink, B., & Manning, J. T. (2003). Second
576–591. doi:10.1037/a0025755 to fourth digit ratio, testosterone and perceived male
Mead, N. L., & Maner, J. (2012b). When me versus you becomes dominance. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological
us versus them: How intergroup competition shapes Sciences, 270, 2167–2172. doi:10.1098/rspb.2003.2502
ingroup psychology. Social & Personality Psychology Neggers, S. F. W., Van der Lubbe, R. H. J., Ramsey, N. F., &
Compass, 6, 566–574. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2012.00447.x Postma, A. (2006). Interactions between ego- and allocen-
Mehta, P. H., Jones, A. C., & Josephs, R. A. (2008). The social tric neuronal representations of space. NeuroImage, 31,
endocrinology of dominance: Basal testosterone predicts 320–331. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.12.028
cortisol changes and behavior following victory and defeat. Nelissen, R. M. A., & Meijers, M. H. C. (2011). Social benefits
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 1078– of luxury brands as costly signals of wealth and status.
1093. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.6.1078 Evolution & Human Behavior, 32, 343–355. doi:10.1016/
Mehta, P. H., & Prasad, S. (2015). The dual-hormone hypoth- j.evolhumbehav.2010.12.002
esis: A brief review and future research agenda. Current Newcomb, A. F., Bukowski, W. M., & Pattee, L. (1993). Children’s
Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 3, 163–168. doi:10.1016/j peer relations: A meta-analytic review of popular, rejected,
.cobeha.2015.04.008 neglected, controversial, and average sociometric status.
Mende-Siedlecki, P., Said, C. P., & Todorov, A. (2013). The social Psychological Bulletin, 113, 99–128. doi:10.1037/0033-
evaluation of faces: A meta-analysis of functional neuroim- 2909.113.1.99
504 Mattan et al.

Nieuwenhuis, S., Aston-Jones, G., & Cohen, J. D. (2005). Perrett, D. I., Lee, K. J., Penton-Voak, I., Rowland, D.,
Decision making, the P3, and the locus coeruleus–nor- Yoshikawa, S., Burt, D. M., . . . Akamatsu, S. (1998). Effects
epinephrine system. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 510–532. of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness. Nature, 394,
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.131.4.510 884–887. doi:10.1038/29772
Nili, H., Wingfield, C., Walther, A., Su, L., Marslen-Wilson, W., Pessiglione, M., Seymour, B., Flandin, G., Dolan, R. J., & Frith,
& Kriegeskorte, N. (2014). A toolbox for representational C. D. (2006). Dopamine-dependent prediction errors
similarity analysis. PLoS Computational Biology, 10(4), underpin reward-seeking behaviour in humans. Nature,
e1003553. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003553 442, 1042–1045. doi:10.1038/nature05051
Noble, K. G., Houston, S. M., Brito, N. H., Bartsch, H., Kan, E., Pettit, G. S., Bakshi, A., Dodge, K. A., & Coie, J. D. (1990).
Kuperman, J. M., . . . Sowell, E. R. (2015). Family income, The emergence of social dominance in young boys’
parental education and brain structure in children and ado- play groups: Developmental differences and behavioral
lescents. Nature Neuroscience, 18, 773–778. doi:10.1038/ correlates. Developmental Psychology, 26, 1017–1025.
nn.3983 doi:10.1037/0012-1649.26.6.1017
Noble, K. G., McCandliss, B. D., & Farah, M. J. (2007). Piff, P. K., Stancato, D. M., Côté, S., Mendoza-Denton,
Socioeconomic gradients predict individual differences in R., & Keltner, D. (2012). Higher social class predicts
neurocognitive abilities. Developmental Science, 10, 464– increased unethical behavior. Proceedings of the National
480. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00600.x Academy of Sciences, USA, 109, 4086–4091. doi:10.1073/
Noonan, M. P., Sallet, J., Mars, R. B., Neubert, F. X., O’Reilly, J. pnas.1118373109
X., Andersson, J. L., . . . Rushworth, M. F. (2014). A neural Pineda, J. A., Sebestyen, G., & Nava, C. (1994). Face recogni-
circuit covarying with social hierarchy in macaques. PLoS tion as a function of social attention in non-human pri-
Biology, 12(9), e1001940. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001940 mates: An ERP study. Cognitive Brain Research, 2, 1–12.
Oldmeadow, J., & Fiske, S. T. (2007). System-justifying ideolo- doi:10.1016/0926-6410(94)90015-9
gies moderate status-competence stereotypes: Roles for Pinel, P., Dehaene, S., Rivière, D., & LeBihan, D. (2001).
belief in a just world and social dominance orientation. Modulation of parietal activation by semantic distance in
European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 1135–1148. a number comparison task. NeuroImage, 14, 1013–1026.
doi:10.1002/ejsp.428 doi:10.1006/nimg.2001.0913
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Pinel, P., Piazza, M., Le Bihan, D., & Dehaene, S. (2004).
Oosterhof, N. N., & Todorov, A. (2008). The functional basis of face Distributed and overlapping cerebral representations of
evaluation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, number, size, and luminance during comparative judgments.
USA, 105, 11087–11092. doi:10.1073/pnas.0805664105 Neuron, 41, 983–993. doi:10.1016/S0896-6273(04)00107-2
Oveis, C., Spectre, A., Smith, P. K., Liu, M. Y., & Keltner, D. (2016). Platt, M. L., Seyfarth, R. M., & Cheney, D. L. (2016). Adaptations
Laughter conveys status. Journal of Experimental Social for social cognition in the primate brain. Philosophical
Psychology, 65, 109–115. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2016.04.005 Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences,
Overbeck, J. R., & Park, B. (2001). When power does not cor- 371(20150096). doi:10.1098/rstb.2015.0096
rupt: Superior individuation processes among powerful Poldrack, R. A. (2006). Can cognitive processes be inferred
perceivers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, from neuroimaging data? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10,
81, 549–565. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.4.549 59–63. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2005.12.004
Overbeck, J. R., & Park, B. (2006). Powerful perceivers, power- Pornpattananangkul, N., Zink, C. F., & Chiao, J. Y. (2014).
less objects: Flexibility of powerholders’ social attention. Neural basis of social status hierarchy. In J. T. Cheng, J.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, L. Tracy, & C. Anderson (Eds.), The psychology of social
99, 227–243. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.10.003 status (pp. 303–323). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Parkinson, C., Liu, S., & Wheatley, T. (2014). A common corti- doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-0867-7
cal metric for spatial, temporal, and social distance. The Pratto, F., Stallworth, L. M., & Sidanius, J. (1997). The gender
Journal of Neuroscience, 34, 1979–1987. doi:10.1523/ gap: Differences in political attitudes and social dominance
JNEUROSCI.2159-13.2014 orientation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 49–68.
Pascual-Leone, A., Walsh, V., & Rothwell, J. (2000). Transcranial doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1997.tb01118.x
magnetic stimulation in cognitive neuroscience—Virtual Quirin, M., Meyer, F., Heise, N., Kuhl, J., Küstermann, E.,
lesion, chronometry, and functional connectivity. Current Strüber, D., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2013). Neural correlates of
Opinion in Neurobiology, 10, 232–237. doi:10.1016/S0959- social motivation: An fMRI study on power versus affilia-
4388(00)00081-7 tion. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 88, 289–
Pavarini, G., & Schnall, S. (2014). Is the glass of kindness half 295. doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2012.07.003
full or half empty? Positive and negative reactions to others’ Rai, T. S., & Fiske, A. P. (2011). Moral psychology is relationship
expressions of virtue. In H. Sarkissian & J. C. Wright (Eds.), regulation: Moral motives for unity, hierarchy, equality, and
Advances in experimental moral psychology (pp. 55–72). proportionality. Psychological Review, 118, 57–75. doi:10.1037/
New York, NY: Bloomsbury Academic. a0021867
Penner, A. M., & Saperstein, A. (2008). How social status shapes Ratcliff, N. J., Hugenberg, K., Shriver, E. R., & Bernstein, M. J.
race. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, (2011). The allure of status: High-status targets are privi-
105, 19628–19630. doi:10.1073/pnas.0805762105 leged in face processing and memory. Personality and
Social Status and Person Perception 505

Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1003–1015. doi:10.1177/ S. P. Mendoza (Eds.), Primate social conflict (pp. 170–204).
0146167211407210 Albany: State University of New York Press.
Re, D. E., DeBruine, L. M., Jones, B. C., & Perrett, D. I. (2013). Sapolsky, R. M. (2004). Social status and health in humans and
Facial cues to perceived height influence leadership other animals. Annual Review of Anthropology, 33, 393–
choices in simulated war and peace contexts. Evolutionary 418. doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.33.070203.144000
Psychology, 11, 89–103. doi:10.1177/147470491301100109 Sapolsky, R. M. (2005). The influence of social hierarchy on primate
Reyes-Garcia, V., Molina, J. L., Broesch, J., Calvet, L., Huanca, health. Science, 308, 648–652. doi:10.1126/science.1106477
T., Saus, J., . . . McDade, T. W. (2008). Do the aged and Sapolsky, R. M., & Share, L. J. (2004). A pacific culture among
knowledgeable men enjoy more prestige? A test of predic- wild baboons: Its emergence and transmission. PLoS
tions from the prestige-bias model of cultural transmission. Biology, 2(4), e106. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0020106
Evolution & Human Behavior, 29, 275–281. doi:10.1016/ Schultz, W. (1998). Predictive reward signal of dopamine neu-
j.evolhumbehav.2008.02.002 rons. Journal of Neurophysiology, 80, 1–27.
Reyes-García, V., Molina, J. L., McDade, T. W., Tanner, S. N., Schultz, W., Dayan, P., & Montague, P. R. (1997). A neural sub-
Huanca, T., & Leonard, W. R. (2009). Inequality in social strate of prediction and reward. Science, 275, 1593–1599.
rank and adult nutritional status: Evidence from a small-scale doi:10.1126/science.275.5306.1593
society in the Bolivian Amazon. Social Science & Medicine, Schupp, H. T., Cuthbert, B. N., Bradley, M. M., Cacioppo, J. T.,
69, 571–578. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.05.039 Ito, T., & Lang, P. J. (2000). Affective picture processing:
Richeson, J. A., Todd, A. R., Trawalter, S., & Baird, A. A. (2008). The late positive potential is modulated by motivational rel-
Eye-gaze direction modulates race-related amygdala activ- evance. Psychophysiology, 37, 257–261. doi:10.1111/1469-
ity. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 11, 233–246. 8986.3720257
doi:10.1177/1368430207088040 Schutter, D. J. L. G., de Haan, E. H. F., & van Honk, J. (2004).
Risko, E. F., Laidlaw, K., Freeth, M., Foulsham, T., & Kingstone, Functionally dissociated aspects in anterior and posterior
A. (2012). Social attention with real versus reel stimuli: electrocortical processing of facial threat. International
Toward an empirical approach to concerns about ecologi- Journal of Psychophysiology, 53, 29–36. doi:10.1016/j.ijpsy
cal validity. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, Article cho.2004.01.003
143. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2012.00143 Seyfarth, R. M., Silk, J. B., & Cheney, D. L. (2012). Variation in
Ross, C., & Van Willigen, M. (1997). Education and the subjec- personality and fitness in wild female baboons. Proceedings
tive quality of life. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 109, 16980–
38, 275–297. doi:10.2307/2955371 16985. doi:10.1073/pnas.1210780109
Rowell, T. E. (1974). The concept of social dominance. Shamay-Tsoory, S. G. (2011). The neural bases for empathy. The
Behavioral Biology, 11, 131–154. doi:10.1016/S0091-6773 Neuroscientist, 17, 18–24. doi:10.1177/1073858410379268
(74)90289-2 Shamay-Tsoory, S. G., Aharon-Peretz, J., & Perry, D. (2009).
Roy, M., Shohamy, D., & Wager, T. D. (2012). Ventromedial Two systems for empathy: A double dissociation between
prefrontal-subcortical systems and the generation of affec- emotional and cognitive empathy in inferior frontal gyrus
tive meaning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16, 147–156. versus ventromedial prefrontal lesions. Brain, 132, 617–
doi:10.1016/j.tics.2012.01.005 627. doi:10.1093/brain/awn279
Ruff, C. C., & Fehr, E. (2014). The neurobiology of rewards Shepherd, S. V., Deaner, R. O., & Platt, M. L. (2006). Social sta-
and values in social decision making. Nature Reviews tus gates social attention in monkeys. Current Biology, 16,
Neuroscience, 15, 549–562. doi:10.1038/nrn3776 R119–R120. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2006.02.013
Sallet, J., Mars, R. B., Noonan, M. P., Andersson, J. L., O’Reilly, Shriver, E. R., Young, S. G., Hugenberg, K., Bernstein, M. J., &
J. X., Jbabdi, S., . . . Rushworth, M. F. S. (2011). Social net- Lanter, J. R. (2008). Class, race, and the face: Social con-
work size affects neural circuits in macaques. Science, 334, text modulates the cross-race effect in face recognition.
697–700. doi:10.1126/science.1210027 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 260–274.
Sanchez, D. T., & Garcia, J. A. (2012). Putting race in context: doi:10.1177/0146167207310455
Socioeconomic status predicts racial fluidity. In S. T. Fiske Shuman, M., & Kanwisher, N. (2004). Numerical magnitude in
& H. R. Markus (Eds.), Facing social class: How societal the human parietal lobe: Tests of representational generality
rank influences interaction (pp. 216–233). New York, NY: and domain specificity. Neuron, 44, 557–569. doi:10.1016/j.
Russell Sage Foundation. neuron.2004.10.008
Santamaría-García, H., Burgaleta, M., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. Silk, J. B., Alberts, S. C., & Altmann, J. (2003). Social bonds
(2015). Neuroanatomical markers of social hierarchy rec- of female baboons enhance infant survival. Science, 302,
ognition in humans: A combined ERP/MRI study. The 1231–1234. doi:10.1126/science.1088580
Journal of Neuroscience, 35, 10843–10850. doi:10.1523/ Singer, T., Kiebel, S. J., Winston, J. S., Dolan, R. J., & Frith,
JNEUROSCI.1457-14.2015 C. D. (2004). Brain responses to the acquired moral sta-
Saperstein, A., Penner, A. M., & Light, R. (2013). Racial for- tus of faces. Neuron, 41, 653–662. doi:10.1016/S0896-
mation in perspective: Connecting individuals, institutions, 6273(04)00014-5
and power relations. Annual Review of Sociology, 39, 359– Snibbe, A. C., & Markus, H. R. (2005). You can’t always get
378. doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-071312-145639 what you want: Educational attainment, agency, and
Sapolsky, R. M. (1993). The physiology of dominance in stable choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88,
versus unstable dominance hierarchies. In W. A. Mason & 703–720. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.703
506 Mattan et al.

Song, J., Davey, C., Poulsen, C., Turovets, S., Luu, P., & Tucker, Tiedens, L. Z., & Fragale, A. R. (2003). Power moves:
D. M. (2015). Sensor density and head surface coverage in Complementarity in dominant and submissive nonverbal
EEG source localization. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84,
256, 9–21. doi:10.1016/j.jneumeth.2015.08.015 558–568. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.3.558
Spisak, B. R., Dekker, P. H., Kruger, M., & Van Vugt, M. Todorov, A. (2011). Evaluating faces on social dimensions. In A.
(2012). Warriors and peacekeepers: Testing a biosocial Todorov, S. T. Fiske, & D. Prentice (Eds.), Social neurosci-
implicit leadership hypothesis of intergroup relations using ence: Toward understanding the underpinnings of the social
masculine and feminine faces. PLoS ONE, 7(1), e30399. mind (pp. 54–76). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0030399 Todorov, A., Harris, L. T., & Fiske, S. T. (2006). Toward socially
Stanley, D. A., & Adolphs, R. (2013). Toward a neural basis inspired social neuroscience. Brain Research, 1079, 76–85.
for social behavior. Neuron, 80, 816–826. doi:10.1016/j.neu doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2005.12.114
ron.2013.10.038 Todorov, A., Said, C. P., Engell, A. D., & Oosterhof, N. N. (2008).
Steckler, C. M., & Tracy, J. L. (2014). The emotional under- Understanding evaluation of faces on social dimensions.
pinnings of social status. In J. T. Cheng, J. L. Tracy, & C. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 455–460. doi:10.1016/j
Anderson (Eds.), The psychology of social status (pp. 201– .tics.2008.10.001
224). New York, NY: Springer. Touhey, J. C. (1974). Effects of additional women profession-
Strayer, F. F., & Strayer, J. (1976). An ethological analysis of social als on ratings of occupational prestige and desirability.
agonism and dominance relations among preschool chil- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 86–89.
dren. Child Development, 47, 980–989. doi:10.2307/1128434 doi:10.1037/h0035742
Strayer, F. F., & Trudel, M. (1984). Developmental changes Tracy, J. L., & Matsumoto, D. (2008). The spontaneous
in the nature and function of social dominance among expression of pride and shame: Evidence for biologically
young children. Ethology and Sociobiology, 5, 279–295. innate nonverbal displays. Proceedings of the National
doi:10.1016/0162-3095(84)90007-4 Academy of Sciences, USA, 105, 11655–11660. doi:10.1073/
Strum, S. (1982). Agonistic dominance among baboons an alter- pnas.0811460106
native view. International Journal of Primatology, 3, 175– Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2004). Show your pride: Evidence
202. doi:10.1007/BF02693494 for a discrete emotion expression. Psychological Science,
Sutton, J., Smith, P., & Swettenham, J. (1999). Social cognition 15, 194–197. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.01503008.x
and bullying: Social inadequacy or skilled manipulation? Tracy, J. L., Shariff, A. F., Zhao, W., & Henrich, J. (2013). Cross-
British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 17, 435–450. cultural evidence that the nonverbal expression of pride
doi:10.1348/026151099165384 is an automatic status signal. Journal of Experimental
Swencionis, J. K., & Fiske, S. T. (2014). How social neuroscience Psychology: General, 142, 163–180. doi:10.1037/a0028412
can inform theories of social comparison. Neuropsychologia, Treiman, D. (1977). Occupational prestige in comparative per-
56, 140–146. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.01.009 spective. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Swencionis, J. K., & Fiske, S. T. (2016). Promote up, ingratiate Uhlmann, E. L., Pizarro, D. A., & Diermeier, D. (2015). A person-
down: Status comparisons drive warmth-competence trad- centered approach to moral judgment. Perspectives on
eoffs in impression management. Journal of Experimental Psychological Science, 10, 72–81. doi:10.1177/17456
Social Psychology, 64, 27–34. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2016.01.004 91614556679
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of inter- Van Vugt, M. (2006). Evolutionary origins of leadership and
group conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The followership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10,
social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). 354–371. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_5
Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Van Vugt, M., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2008). Leadership,
Takahashi, H., Kato, M., Matsuura, M., Mobbs, D., Suhara, T., & followership, and evolution: Some lessons from the past.
Okubo, Y. (2009). When your gain is my pain and your pain American Psychologist, 63, 182–196. doi:10.1037/0003-
is my gain: Neural correlates of envy and Schadenfreude. 066X.63.3.182
Science, 323, 937–939. doi:10.1126/science.1165604 Van Vugt, M., & Spisak, B. R. (2008). Sex differences in the
Taylor, S. E., Eisenberger, N. I., Saxbe, D., Lehman, B. J., & emergence of leadership during competitions within and
Lieberman, M. D. (2006). Neural responses to emo- between groups. Psychological Science, 19, 854–858.
tional stimuli are associated with childhood family stress. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02168.x
Biological Psychiatry, 60, 296–301. doi:10.1016/j.bio Varnum, M. E. W. (2013). What are lay theories of social class?
psych.2005.09.027 PLoS ONE, 8(7), e70589. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0070589
Terburg, D., Hooiveld, N., Aarts, H., Kenemans, J. L., & van Varnum, M. E. W. (2016). The emerging (social) neuroscience
Honk, J. (2011). Eye tracking unconscious face-to-face con- of SES. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10,
frontations. Psychological Science, 22, 314–319. doi:10.1177/ 423–430. doi:10.1111/spc3.12258.
0956797611398492 Vaughn, B. E., & Waters, E. (1981). Attention structure, socio-
Thomsen, L., Frankenhuis, W. E., Ingold-Smith, M., & Carey, S. metric status, and dominance: Interrelations, behav-
(2011). Big and mighty: Preverbal infants mentally repre- ioral correlates, and relationships to social competence.
sent social dominance. Science, 331, 477–480. doi:10.1126/ Developmental Psychology, 17, 275–288. doi:10.1037/0012-
science.1199198 1649.17.3.275
Social Status and Person Perception 507

Verderane, M. P., Izar, P., Visalberghi, E., & Fragaszy, D. M. of anti-white bias. Psychological Science, 25, 439–446.
(2013). Socioecology of wild bearded capuchin monkeys doi:10.1177/0956797613508412
(Sapajus libidinosus): An analysis of social relationships Wilkins, C. L., Wellman, J. D., Babbitt, L. G., Toosi, N. R., &
among female primates that use tools in feeding. Behaviour, Schad, K. D. (2015). You can win but I can’t lose: Bias
150, 659–689. doi:10.1163/1568539X-00003076 against high-status groups increases their zero-sum beliefs
Vernon, R. J. W., Sutherland, C. A. M., Young, A. W., & Hartley, about discrimination. Journal of Experimental Social
T. (2014). Modeling first impressions from highly vari- Psychology, 57, 1–14. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2014.10.008
able facial images. Proceedings of the National Academy Wilkinson, R. G., & Pickett, K. E. (2009). Income inequality and
of Sciences, USA, 111, E3353–E3361. doi:10.1073/pnas.140 social dysfunction. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 493–
9860111 511. doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-115926
von Rueden, C., Gurven, M., & Kaplan, H. (2008). The multiple Williams, D. E., & Schaller, K. A. (1993). Peer persuasion: A study
dimensions of male social status in an Amazonian society. of children’s dominance strategies. Early Child Development
Evolution & Human Behavior, 29, 402–415. doi:10.1016/j and Care, 88, 31–41. doi:10.1080/0300443930880104
.evolhumbehav.2008.05.001 Wise, R. A., & Hoffman, D. C. (1992). Localization of drug
von Rueden, C., Gurven, M., & Kaplan, H. (2011). Why do reward mechanisms by intracranial injections. Synapse, 10,
men seek status? Fitness payoffs to dominance and pres- 247–263. doi:10.1002/syn.890100307
tige. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Wise, R. A., & Rompre, P.-P. (1989). Brain dopamine and reward.
278, 2223–2232. doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.2145 Annual Review of Psychology, 40, 191–225. doi:10.1146/
Wagner, T., Valero-Cabre, A., & Pascual-Leone, A. (2007). annurev.psych.40.1.191
Noninvasive human brain stimulation. The Annual Review Yamakawa, Y., Kanai, R., Matsumura, M., & Naito, E. (2009).
of Biomedical Engineering, 9, 527–565. doi:10.1146/ Social distance evaluation in human parietal cortex. PLoS
annurev.bioeng.9.061206.133100 ONE, 4(2), e4360. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004360
Walker, M., & Vetter, T. (2016). Changing the personality of a Yzerbyt, V. Y., Kervyn, N., & Judd, C. M. (2008). Compensation
face: Perceived Big Two and Big Five personality factors versus halo: The unique relations between the funda-
modeled in real photographs. Journal of Personality and mental dimensions of social judgment. Personality and
Social Psychology, 110, 609–624. doi:10.1037/pspp0000064 Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1110–1123. doi:10.1177/
Watanabe, N., & Yamamoto, M. (2015). Neural mechanisms of 0146167208318602
social dominance. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 9, Article 154. Zink, C. F., Pagnoni, G., Chappelow, J., Martin-Skurski, M.,
doi:10.3389/fnins.2015.00154 & Berns, G. S. (2006). Human striatal activation reflects
Weinstein, T. A. R., & Capitanio, J. P. (2008). Individual differences degree of stimulus saliency. NeuroImage, 29, 977–983.
in infant temperament predict social relationships of yearling doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.08.006
rhesus monkeys, Macaca mulatta. Animal Behaviour, 76, Zink, C. F., Tong, Y., Chen, Q., Bassett, D. S., & Stein, J. L.
455–465. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.01.024 (2008). Know your place: Neural processing of social
Wilkins, C. L., & Kaiser, C. R. (2014). Racial progress as threat hierarchy in humans. Neuron, 58, 273–283. doi:10.1016/
to the status hierarchy: Implications for perceptions j.neuron.2008.01.025