Status (Sociology)

Introduction

Social status is a central dimension of stratification, making up one leg of the traditional “class, status, power” division among the bases of societal inequality. Originating in the work of Max Weber, this division, by asserting the independent influence of status groups and interests, represented a key departure from Karl Marx’s insistence on the primacy of economic or class relationships. Despite the long-established prominence of this concept in the field of sociology, status has been variously defined and employed. Some definitions, following Veblen, focus on the individual aspects of status, referring to the rank, prestige, or esteem of one’s position in a social hierarchy. Other definitions focus on status groups or communities defined by shared lifestyles; these groups use these common status identities to gain access to valuable resources, privileges, and entitlements and defend those they already possess. Contemporary empirical research on status has focused primarily on socioeconomic status or experimental studies of small groups, although there is a burgeoning literature on the role that status plays in structuring markets and determining organizational outcomes.

Classics and General Statements

While there are no major textbooks or handbooks dedicated exclusively to status, the short treatise by Turner 1988 on the subject provides a useful overview as does, although to a lesser extent, the Stub 1972 collection of essays with introductory commentary. The classic works in this area retain their value as the most comprehensive statements on the various aspects of status processes. Most important are Veblen 1994 (originally published in 1899), which includes arguments about the centrality of status and status symbolism to human society; Weber 1978 (originally published in 1913), which includes analysis of status groups, social closure, and the independent influence of status stratification (a line of argument extended by Mills 1963); and later theorizing about status distribution as a form of social control by Goode 1978. The distinction in Linton 1936 between ascribed and achieved status sets the stage for the very fruitful line of research in status attainment, of which Blau and Duncan 1967 was the pioneering work.

Blau, Peter M., and Otis Dudley Duncan. 1967. The American occupational structure. New York: John Wiley.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Blau and Duncan document how socioeconomic status is transmitted from one generation to the next in the United States through measurement of the degree to which an individual’s occupational status is grounded in social origin (represented by the occupational status of the individual’s father) and how much has to do with education.
Find this resource:

Goode, William J. 1978. The celebration of heroes: Prestige as a social control system. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
A central text in the study of status, Goode presents a definitive analysis of how prestige serves as a mechanism of social control in modern society by increasing group commitment, integration, and continuity. Goode examines, for example, the means by which prestige is allocated, how it shapes behavior, under what conditions status rewards are considered fair, and how systems for the distribution of prestige change over time.
Find this resource:

Linton, Ralph. 1936. The study of man: An introduction. New York: D. Appleton-Century.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Defining status as a “collection of rights and duties,” Linton originates the classic distinction between ascribed status, which is given as a product of birthright, and achieved status, which is earned through the special qualities and merits of the individual.
Find this resource:

Mills, C. Wright. 1963. The sociology of stratification. In Power, politics, and people: The collected essays of C. Wright Mills. Edited by Irving Louis Horowitz, 305–324. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Mills updates and extends Weber’s multidimensional model of stratification, noting in particular how mid-20th-century status concerns influence life chances and perceptions of the stratification order. Originally published in 1954.
Find this resource:

Stub, Holger R., ed. 1972. Status communities in modern society: Alternatives to class analysis. Hinsdale, IL: Dryden.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Proposing that status communities offer an analytically useful alternative to class conceptions for understanding modern stratification, this volume is composed of twenty-seven wide-ranging readings on status stratification. Topics include status symbols, prestige and lifestyle, elite status circles, lower-level status communities, and social mobility.
Find this resource:

Turner, Bryan S. 1988. Status. Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This book provides a thorough treatment of the status field, emphasizing Weber’s theories of status group and lifestyle. Emphasizing the politico-legal aspects of status, Turner analyzes the historical development of status entitlements and details how this view departs from Marx’s class analysis.
Find this resource:

Veblen, Thorstein. 1994. The theory of the leisure class. New York: Dover.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
In his classic treatise, Veblen argues for the central significance of status concerns to social life. Noting the nearly universal impulse of humans to invidiously compare themselves to their peers, Veblen emphasizes the importance of conspicuous consumption and leisure. Veblen concludes that the quest for status drives desires for wealth and power rather than resulting from them. Originally published in 1899.
Find this resource:

Weber, Max. 1978. Economy and Society: An outline of interpretive sociology. 2 vols. Edited by G. Roth and C. Wittich. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
In this monumental collection of essays and theoretical statements, Weber lays the groundwork for much of the subsequent status research in sociology. Of particular influence is his definition of status and status group (pp. 305–307), his discussion of social closure based on status differences (pp. 339–348), and his famous essay on the dimensions of stratification (pp. 926–940). Originally published in 1913.
Find this resource:

Popularized Writings

In addition to the academically oriented publications on status, there are a number of informative books about social status directed at the general public. Fussell 1983 and Brooks 2000 provide provocative contemporary examples of status behavior and symbolization. Botton 2004 examines the roots of our drive for status while Marmot 2004 explains the wide-ranging effects status can have on health outcomes. Finally, Aldrich 1988 provides a detailed insider’s account of the traditional American upper class and Epstein 2002 discusses how the erosion of these traditional status barriers have affected expressions of status advantage in modern society.

Aldrich, Nelson W., Jr. 1988. Old money: The mythology of America’s upper class. New York: Vintage.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Reporting from inside the class he describes, Aldrich lends support to Veblen’s theories of conspicuous consumption and leisure by detailing how “old money” families transform their financial resources to develop status markers that set them apart from other classes, including the new rich.
Find this resource:

Botton, Alain de. 2004. Status anxiety. New York: Vintage.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
A treatise on the power of status concerns the sources of this power—de Botton emphasizes lovelessness, expectation, meritocracy, snobbishness, and dependence—and possible ways to overcome this condition. This book offers a wide range of historical and contemporary illustrations of the desire for status and the manifestations of this desire.
Find this resource:

Brooks, David. 2000. Bobos in paradise: The new upper class and how they got there. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Brooks describes the status symbolism of the new upper class in the United States, the bohemian bourgeois (“bobos”). Arguing that this trendsetting class has combined the counter-culture tastes of the 1960s with the capitalist self-centeredness of the 1980s, Brooks depicts the educational credentials, consumption patterns, and cultural activities of this modern leisure class.
Find this resource:

Epstein, Joseph. 2002. Snobbery: The American version. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Epstein examines contemporary forms of snobbery in a social system in which old status symbols—prep schools, debutante balls, and the Social Register—no longer hold sway. Epstein provides witty examples from a multitude of areas of social life to show that cultural choices concerning food, politics, fashion, and education now define modern American forms of snobbery. E-book.
Find this resource:

Fussell, Paul. 1983. Class: A guide through the American status system. London: Simon and Schuster.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
A humorously critical view of how status is indicated in the United States. Fussell provides a thorough account of the contemporary landscape of status symbols, paying close attention to educational credentials, houses, clothing styles, recreation, appearance, and intellectual pursuits.
Find this resource:

Marmot, Michael. 2004. The status syndrome: How social standing affects our health and longevity. New York: Owl.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Arguing that the psychological experience of status inequality has significant effects on health outcomes, Marmot provides evidence that social status plays an important role in determining susceptibility to major illnesses and early death. In addition, the data presented in the book suggest that this gap in health outcomes between those of high and low status has been increasing in recent years.
Find this resource:

Socioeconomic Status and Prestige Scales

In light of Weber’s critique of Marx’s exclusive emphasis on the economic basis of class, there is a long tradition in stratification research of dividing individuals into status groups and social (as opposed to economic) classes. Warner 1960, a collection of community studies, represents the earliest prominent examples, categorizing families into three to six classes based on their lifestyles, income, and background. Methodological advancements prompted later efforts to develop gradational measures of social standing based on occupational status. One prominent approach, pioneered by Blau and Duncan 1967 (cited under Classics and General Statements), was to construct socioeconomic status scales from weighted averages of occupational income and education. A second approach, epitomized by Trieman 1977, was the development of occupational prestige scales based on surveys of different populations. Although these two approaches instigated heated internal debates about the relative merits of each method—represented here by well-known critiques by Goldthorpe and Hope 1974 and Featherman and Hauser 1976—they also led to great advances in the sociological understanding of status attainment and are perhaps best known for the finding that occupational hierarchies are remarkably consistent across societies and over time (Hodge, et al. 1964). More recent work (see especially Hauser and Warren 1997, Zhou 2005, and Chan and Goldthorpe 2007) questions whether either approach offers a clear enough conceptualization of status or prestige to represent a true departure from class analysis. Following Weber, these authors attempt to develop occupational analyses that clearly distinguish between the effects of class and those of status.

Chan, Tak Wing, and John H. Goldthorpe. 2007. Class and status: The conceptual distinction and its empirical relevance. American Sociological Review 72.4:512–532.
DOI: 10.1177/000312240707200402Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Critiquing the one-dimensional stratification system implied by measures of socioeconomic status, the authors create a nuanced occupational classification system to parse out the differing effects of class and status in British social life.
Find this resource:

Featherman, David L., and Robert Mason Hauser. 1976. Prestige of socioeconomic scales in the study of occupational achievement? Sociological Methods and Research 4:403–422.
DOI: 10.1177/004912417600400401Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Drawing on data from the United States and Australia, the authors provide statistical grounds for arguing that socioeconomic scales are more reliable measures than prestige scales for the study of occupational achievement.
Find this resource:

Goldthorpe, John H., and Keith Hope. 1974. The social grading of occupations: A new approach and scale. Oxford Studies in Social Mobility. Oxford: Clarendon.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
An early critique of occupational prestige measures, this study contends that these measures do not assess deference to superiors or derogation of inferiors (as the word “prestige” implies), but instead only reflect the awareness of the relative rewards that are given to particular positions in society.
Find this resource:

Hauser, Robert M., and John Robert Warren. 1997. Socioeconomic indexes for occupations: A review, update, and critique. Sociological Methodology 27:77–298.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This article provides a valuable contemporary overview of the strengths and weaknesses of models of occupational prestige and socioeconomic indexes of occupational status. They conclude by questioning the value of these indexes as compared to simpler measures of educational achievement.
Find this resource:

Hodge, Robert W., Paul M. Siegel, and Peter H. Rossi. 1964. Occupational prestige in the United States: 1925–1963. American Journal of Sociology 70:286–302.
DOI: 10.1086/223840Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
An influential early empirical study of the US occupational structure, this article demonstrates an extraordinary stability in the prestige of occupations during a forty-year period.
Find this resource:

Trieman, Donald J. 1977. Occupational prestige in comparative perspective. Quantitative Studies in Social Relations. New York: Academic Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Comparing how individuals rank occupations in fifteen countries, Trieman provides evidence for the remarkable consistency of occupational prestige—defined here as the recognized power and privilege associated with a position—across nations.
Find this resource:

Warner, W. Lloyd, Marchia Meeker, and Kenneth Eels. 1960. Social class in America: The evaluation of status. New York: Harper & Row.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
In this groundbreaking work, Warner and his colleagues develop one of the first empirical classifications of social class. With divisions based on both income and lifestyle, families from the “Yankee City” community study were categorized into six distinct classes that were then tied to educational aspirations and achievement, spending patterns, and occupational choices.
Find this resource:

Zhou, Xueguang. 2005. The institutional logic of occupational prestige ranking: Reconceptualization and reanalyses. American Journal of Sociology 111.1: 90–140.
DOI: 10.1086/428687Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
In this reformulation of occupational prestige measures, Zhou argues that social recognition is the basis for occupational prestige rather than authority or power. Zhou provides evidence that conformity to widely held values of society drives the prestige of occupations with scientific or technical natures, while economic resources drive the prestige of those presumably based on authority or power.
Find this resource:

Status Communities and Groups

Following Stub 1972 (cited under Classics and General Statements), status communities are defined as groups of people who share lifestyles or value commitments. These communities range from small informal associations to professional groups and are often put forward as an alternative to class-based conceptualizations of social stratification. Predictably, research in this area is replete with exemplars originating in urban ethnographies (Whyte 1943, Anderson 1978), Merton 1968–inspired studies of scientific communities (Cole and Cole 1973, Zuckerman 1977) and occupational status groups (Record 1957, Sandefur 2001). While the majority of this work focuses on the internal dynamics of a particular status community (how status is determined, allocated, and policed), how status groups develop and maintain their status in larger social structures is also an important line of inquiry.

Anderson, Elijah. 1978. A place on the corner. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This book contains a careful study of an informal status community composed of men who gather at a liquor store in the South Side of Chicago. Anderson shows how this group, through the daily interactions of its members, defines the values that underpin the status order and adjudicates between legitimate and illegitimate status claims.
Find this resource:

Cole, Jonathan R., and Stephen Cole. 1973. Social stratification in science. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
The authors analyze the publication records and academic prestige of 120 eminent physicists to study the distribution of rewards, in terms of prizes and prestigious appointments, in this status community. Although concluding that the scientific community is largely meritocratic, they find evidence that the prestige of one’s PhD granting institution, current departmental status, and previous success have some effect on the reception of one’s research.
Find this resource:

Merton, Robert K. 1968. The Matthew effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science 159 (3810): 56–63.
DOI: 10.1126/science.159.3810.56Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
In his classic analysis of stratification in the scientific community, Merton contends that systems of honor in science bias the distribution of esteem or credit toward successful members of the community. The scientific community, for example, will tend to attribute disproportionate credit to the more well known of two co-authors no matter the extent of their actual contributions.
Find this resource:

Record, Jane Cassels. 1957. The marine radioman’s struggle for status. American Journal of Sociology 62.4: 353–359.
DOI: 10.1086/222031Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
A description of one status group’s efforts to establish its standing in a rigid pre-existing hierarchy. Cassels shows how radio operators—a relatively new occupational group with the merchant marines—used formal bureaucratic procedures to be categorized as officers rather than as common crewmembers. The tensions between formal and informal recognition of the standing of a status group is also discussed.
Find this resource:

Sandefur, Rebecca L. 2001. Work and honor in the law: Prestige and the division of lawyers’ labor. American Sociological Review 66.3: 382–403.
DOI: 10.2307/3088885Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Sandefur investigates the basis for the prestige that underlies an occupational status group. Using data from a survey of Chicago lawyers, the article argues that the ability to avoid non-legal issues in the practice of law—labeled here, “professional purity”—is a better indicator of prestige among lawyers than the types of clients with which one associates.
Find this resource:

Whyte, William Foote. 1943. Street corner society: The social structure of an Italian slum. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Whyte documents the characteristics of an informal status group composed of young men in an Italian neighborhood of Boston. Among other insights, Whyte observed that even though the status hierarchy of this group was determined by a few characteristics (toughness, age, access to a vehicle), the hierarchy was maintained throughout all of the group’s activities when the group was together.
Find this resource:

Zuckerman, Harriet. 1977. Scientific elite: Nobel laureates in the United States. New York: Free Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Based primarily on the life histories of ninety-two Nobel laureates, this book explores how status is distributed within the scientific community. By examining why some eminent scientists received this award while others did not, Zuckerman demonstrates how the accumulation of advantage and the Matthew Effect skew the allocation of status within the scientific community.
Find this resource:

Status Symbols

As suggested by Holger Stub, “The most readily discernable aspect of social stratification is related to symbols of status and prestige” (Stub 1972:217 see Classics and General Statements]), a key feature of status is its enactment in face-to-face interaction (Goffman 1967, Sauder 2005). For a claim to honor to be heeded, there must be signs in the present (status symbols) or from the past (reputation) that legitimize the claim (Goffman 1951). This need to display standing is one of the key distinctions between status and class stratification. While status symbolism may be especially clear in the upper classes (see especially Veblen 1994 under Classics and General Statements and Baltzel 1958), Mills 1951 and others make clear that these visible distinctions are important among all classes and especially so in urban environments (Form and Stone 1957) and other anonymous contexts (Rivera 2010). Best 2010 shows how honors and awards play an important role in marking status in modern capitalist society, and these symbolic differences, as Bourdieu 1984 demonstrates, have important effects on access to rewards and life chances.

Baltzell, E. Digby. 1958. Philadelphia gentlemen. New York: Free Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
In this classic study of the upper class in Philadelphia, Baltzell provides a detailed description of the lifestyles of this societal “aristocracy.” These “old money” elites differentiate themselves from the other classes, as well as “new money,” through status symbols based on educational institutions, lineage, club memberships, and religious affiliations.
Find this resource:

Best, Joel. 2010. Everyone’s a winner: Life in our congratulatory culture. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Best examines the proliferation of prizes and awards in contemporary society. This “status inflation,” Best argues, results from economic affluence, increases in leisure time, and improved communication and has led to a “self-congratulatory culture.”
Find this resource:

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Bourdieu demonstrates how status symbols can serve as a vehicle by which class differences, and especially class advantages, are transmitted from generation to generation without undermining meritocratic ideology.
Find this resource:

Form, William H., and Gregory P. Stone. 1957. Urbanism, anonymity, and status symbolism. American Journal of Sociology 62.5: 505–514.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This article analyzes the role of status symbolism in urban environments. Arguing that the anonymous nature of cities makes the visible representation of social position necessary, the authors examine how individuals in different class positions vary in how they assess and acknowledge the status of strangers.
Find this resource:

Goffman, Erving. 1951. Symbols of class status. British Journal of Sociology 2.4: 294–304.
DOI: 10.2307/588083Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Reinforcing Veblen’s arguments about the importance of status symbols, Goffman explains the necessity of status symbols: they provide a working consensus that allows for cooperative activity in a differentiated society. Status symbols serve as an efficient way for people to determine how they are supposed to treat others or be treated by them and a means by which to integrate those within the same status category.
Find this resource:

Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Goffman details the interpersonal “status rituals” in which individuals engage to symbolically convey deference and respect. Goffman contends that these seemingly unimportant interactions—as mundane as brief salutations and cursory apologies—serve as the building blocks of the social order.
Find this resource:

Mills, C. Wright. 1951. White collar: The American middle class. New York: Free Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
In this classic study of the changing nature of the middle class, Mills documents the pressing status concerns of white-collar workers. Mills emphasizes how structural changes to the middle class have made the status positions of this class much more ambiguous and precarious.
Find this resource:

Rivera, Lauren. 2010. Status distinctions in interaction: Social selection and exclusion at an elite nightclub. Qualitative Sociology 33.3: 229–255.
DOI: 10.1007/s11133-010-9152-2Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This qualitative study of doormen at an elite nightclub provides a rare look at how status processes unfold in natural settings. Rivera closely examines how these judges of status use status symbols to determine who has enough and the right kind of status to deserve entry into the club.
Find this resource:

Sauder, Michael. 2005. Contexts and symbols: An interactionist approach to the study of social status. Sociological Quarterly 46.2: 279–298.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1533-8525.2005.00013.xSave Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Citing the importance of status symbolism, this article argues for the value of interactionist principles for studying status stratification. An interactionist approach, by showing how status is indicated, employed, and maintained, demonstrates the influence of status on both individual and organizational behavior.
Find this resource:

Status Hierarchies and Systems

This approach to the study of status either takes the status system as a unit of analysis or demonstrates how characteristics of a status system help determine who is granted status, on what basis, and the nature of the rewards received. Dumont 1970 is a classic study of a caste system and Frank 1985, an analysis of local reference groups; both illustrate how the underlying bases of status distinction lead to unique types of status hierarchies and judgments. Often hierarchies compete or overlap, which has led other analysts to examine situations in which the same population of actors is subject to multiple status hierarchies, a situation that can produce positive effects (Coleman 1961, Padgett 2010) but can also, as Abbott 1981 makes clear, create strain among those who are subject to conflicting status criteria. Following Gould 2002, other work in this area has examined how status hierarchies emerge and how the nature of these hierarchies affect status actors. For example, Frank and Cook 1995 shows how the shape of status hierarchies influence status activity, Gould 2003 shows how the degree of ambiguity within these hierarchies matters, and Sauder 2006 demonstrates the effect of formal as opposed to informal bases of status judgment.

Abbott, Andrew. 1981. Status and status strain in the professions. American Journal of Sociology 86.4: 819–835.
DOI: 10.1086/227318Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Using medical subspecialties as an example, Abbott demonstrates how nonprofessionals and professionals grant subspecialty status according to different criteria (respectively, the practical ability to combat the disorderly as opposed to the ability to maintain professional purity by eschewing nonprofessional concerns). These two competing status hierarchies generate professional strain in terms of intraprofessional conflict, lack of integration, and the weakening of jurisdictional boundaries.
Find this resource:

Coleman, James S. 1961. The adolescent society: The social life of the teenager and its impact on education. New York: Free Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
In this study of high school status systems, Coleman shows that while high school students place extreme importance on their standing among peers, there are many different bases of status available in this social system. These competing status hierarchies make unequivocal status judgments difficult and foster an ambiguity that is beneficial in the volatile status system of a high school.
Find this resource:

DuMont, Louis. 1970. Homo Hierachicus: The caste system and its implications. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
In this classic study of the Indian caste system, which is composed of strict status divisions, DuMont presents a useful comparison of status systems based on hierarchy and collective consciousness and contrasts it with the Western model, which is based on egalitarianism and individuality.
Find this resource:

Frank, Robert H. 1985. Choosing the right pond: Human behavior and the quest for status. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Defining status as a positional good—a good valued because it compares favorably to others in its class rather than for any inherent property it possesses—this economic analysis highlights the importance of local reference groups and status systems. This emphasis on the local nature of status demonstrates how the context and scope of status hierarchies define their influence.
Find this resource:

Frank, Robert. H., and Philip J. Cook. 1995. The winner-take-all society: How more and more Americans compete for ever fewer and bigger prizes, encouraging economic waste, income inequality, and an impoverished cultural life. New York: Penguin.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Frank and Cook detail the growth of markets in which the distribution of rewards, including status rewards, are skewed heavily toward those at the top of the hierarchy. A very good example of how the structure of a status hierarchy affects the reward distribution among the status activities of those within.
Find this resource:

Gould, Roger V. 2002. The origins of status hierarchies: A formal theory and empirical test. American Journal of Sociology 107.5: 1143–1178.
DOI: 10.1086/341744Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Gould develops, formalizes, and then uses existing network data to test a theory about how status hierarchies emerge and persist. Refuting purely individualist and structuralist accounts, Gould shows how the self-reinforcing nature of status judgments amplify small differences in individual quality to create and reify significant inequality with a status system.
Find this resource:

Gould, Roger V. 2003. Collision of wills: How ambiguity about social rank breeds conflict. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Analyzing the effects that ambiguity within a status system has on those being evaluated, Gould shows that status systems in which the pecking order is unclear are far more likely to produce violent conflict than those in which this hierarchy is well-defined. This book well exemplifies how the characteristics of status hierarchies influence the distribution of status.
Find this resource:

Padgett, John F. 2010. Open elite? Social mobility, marriage, and family in Florence, 1282–1494. Renaissance Quarterly 63.2: 1–55.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This historical study documents the coexistence of three distinct status systems in Florence, Italy, during the period from 1282 to 1494. The ambiguity created by the simultaneously operating status systems—based on wealth, political office, and family age—created opportunities for upward mobility for those previously outside of the elite.
Find this resource:

Sauder, Michael. 2006. Third parties and status position: How the characteristics of status systems matter. Theory and Society 35.3: 299–321.
DOI: 10.1007/s11186-006-9005-xSave Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Using the example of U.S. News and World Report rankings, this article demonstrates how the formalization of status distinctions changes important aspects of the status hierarchy. In this case, the migration from an informal to a formal definition of the status structure altered the positions available to actors, transformed the process by which these positions are allocated, and redefined the bases on which such allocation was carried out.
Find this resource:

Social Closure and Symbolic Boundaries

Originating in the work of Weber and developed by Parkin 1979 and Murphy 1988, the theory of social closure holds that groups often use status distinctions to produce or maintain advantageous positions in markets—most significantly the marriage and employment markets. By limiting the markets with whom they are willing to interact and exchange, status groups help determine the extent of economic inequality within a society. The basis of the particular form of social closure depends on the situation and can be constituted by either ascribed or achieved status characteristics. Weeden 2002 represents a recent extension of these ideas, showing how closure processes help account for occupational inequalities in pay. Status characteristics, then, are used to limit access to opportunities for prestige, profit, and power. One important contemporary extension of this approach—derived from Bourdieu’s discussions of cultural capital and developed and refined in Lamont and Fournier 1992, Lamont 2002, and Lamont and Molnar 2002, is the examination of how status creates and reinforces symbolic boundaries between groups and classes. Examples of this line of research include Collins 1992, an examination of how status boundaries parallel sexual divisions of labor, Hall 1992, which focuses on the effects of crosscutting status boundaries, and Peterson and Simkus 1992, an analysis of cultural status distinctions.

Collins, Randall. 1992. Women and the production of status cultures. In Cultivating differences: Symbolic boundaries and the making of inequality. Edited by Michèle Lamont and Marcel Fournier, 213–231. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Collins contends that the production of status cultures and their corresponding symbolic boundaries is strongly associated with the sexual division of labor. Women often play important, if unacknowledged, roles in the management and maintenance of status markers both in the home and in the culture industry (as artists, salespeople, writers, etc.).
Find this resource:

Hall, John R. 1992. The capital(s) of cultures: A nonholistic approach to status situations, class, gender, and ethnicity. In Cultivating differences: Symbolic boundaries and the making of inequality. Edited by Michèle Lamont and Marcel Fournier, 257–285. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
In this critique of Bourdieu’s unidimensional concept of cultural capital, Hall points to the multiplicity of status situations, and thus status boundaries. Because culture is complex, individuals often simultaneously belong to status groups based on many different factors (such as ethnicity, age, lifestyle, religion).
Find this resource:

Lamont, Michèle. 2002. Symbolic boundaries and status. In Cultural sociology. Edited by Lyn Spillman, 98–119. Blackwell Readers In Sociology 6. Malden, MA, and Oxford: Blackwell.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Composed of excerpts from the author’s Money, Morals, and Manners (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), this chapter argues that, among the upper-middle class in France and the United States, status boundaries based on moral and socioeconomic distinctions are invoked as much as the cultural distinctions that have been the primary focus of status signaling.
Find this resource:

Lamont, Michèle, and Marcel Fournier, eds. 1992. Cultivating differences: Symbolic boundaries and the making of inequality. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
A collection of essays examining how symbolic boundaries are created, how they reproduce inequality, and the role status signals play in these processes. Sections of the book are dedicated to the institutionalization of cultural categories, high culture’s exclusionary effects, and the relationship between ascribed differences (especially race and gender) and cultural boundaries.
Find this resource:

Lamont, Michèle, and Virág Molnar. 2002. The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology 28:167–195.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This essay provides an informative overview to the literature on symbolic boundaries, covering the various bases of boundaries (e.g., gender, race, cultural identity, community affiliation, professional) as well as the different ways in which they are produced, maintained, and adapted.
Find this resource:

Murphy, Raymond. 1988. Social closure: The theory of monopolization and exclusion. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Murphy follows Weber and Parkin in recognizing the usefulness of the concept of social closure, but argues that not all closure is the same. In a capitalist economy, for example, closure practices based on property or wealth have a much stronger and wider-ranging influence on life chances than does closure based on credentials.
Find this resource:

Parkin, Frank. 1979. Marxism and class theory: A bourgeois critique. New York: Columbia Univ. Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
In this reintroduction and development of Weber’s largely forgotten concept of social closure, Parkin expands closure theory by distinguishing between closure by the privileged (exclusionary closure) and closure by outsiders in an attempt to gain more resources (usurpationary closure).
Find this resource:

Peterson, Richard A., and Albert Simkus. 1992. How musical tastes mark occupational status groups. In Cultivating differences: Symbolic boundaries and the making of inequality. Edited by Michèle Lamont and Marcel Fournier, 152–186. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
In this empirical examination of the boundary between highbrow and popular cultural status symbols, the authors find that musical taste varies by occupational status: high-status individuals in the United States prefer classical music while those with low occupational status prefer country music.
Find this resource:

Weeden, Kim A. 2002. Why do some occupations pay more than others? Social closure and earnings inequality in the United States. American Journal of Sociology 108.1: 55–101.
DOI: 10.1086/344121Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
In this empirical application of social closure, Weeden shows how occupational groups use social and legal barriers to increase the rewards of their work. By employing closure strategies such as licensing, credentialing, certification, unionization, and representation by association, occupational groups increase and solidify their occupational status, and this status change leads to greater occupational rewards.
Find this resource:

Social Psychological Perspectives

Focusing primarily on small task groups, this tradition studies how status processes and structures are generated through interactions among individuals. Currently this is the dominant approach to the study of status in sociology and it is largely defined by expectation states theory and status construction theory. The theory of expectation states examines how performance expectations shape the status orders of task groups. It builds off the previous work on the status dynamics of small groups, such as Strodtbeck, et al. 1957 (research on jury deliberations), that was initially developed in Berger, et al. 1972 and Berger, et al. 1977. Most generally, this research program demonstrates how beliefs about the status values of different group characteristics—especially those tied to race, gender, or occupation—play a key role in constructing and justifying status hierarchies among social actors. Lovaglia, et al. 1998, a study of how expectations about test performance influence actual outcomes, provides a stark empirical example. Status construction theory, developed by Ridgeway 1991, Ridgeway, et al. 1998, and Ridgeway and Erickson 2000, extends the work of expectations states by examining how these widely shared status beliefs develop initially and the processes by which they change over time. As a whole, this social psychological approach aims to show how these microlevel processes of influence, deference, and esteem create and sustain social inequality at the societal level of analysis. Ridgeway and Walker 1995 and Ridgeway 2002 provide valuable overviews of this perspective.

Berger, Joseph, P. Cohen, and Morris Zelditch Jr. 1972. Status characteristics and social interaction. American Sociological Review 37.3:241–255.
DOI: 10.2307/2093465Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Considered the founding statement on status characteristics—the precursor to expectations states theory—this article provides experimental evidence to show that group characteristics, such as age, sex, and race, affect the degree to which individuals participate in task groups, their influence in the group, and the estimations of their standing in the group.
Find this resource:

Berger, Joseph, M. Hamit Fişek, Robert Z. Norman, and Morris Zelditch Jr. 1977. Status characteristics and social interaction: An expectation-states approach. New York: Elsevier.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
A foundational statement of the expectation states research program, this book describes the development of this paradigm, outlines its axiomatic underpinnings, and provides experimental evidence of its contributions.
Find this resource:

Lovaglia, Michael, Jeffrey W. Lucas, Jeffrey A. Houser, Shane R. Thye, and Barry Markovsky. 1998. Status processes and mental ability test scores. American Journal of Sociology 104.1:195–228.
DOI: 10.1086/210006Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
The authors provide experimental evidence that expectations about the consequences of test scores that measure ability have significant effects on test performance. These results demonstrate the important influence that status processes have on mental ability measures.
Find this resource:

Ridgeway, Cecilia. 1991. The social construction of status value: Gender and other nominal characteristics. Social Forces 70.2:367–386.
DOI: 10.2307/2580244Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Combining insights from Blau’s social exchange theory and expectation states theory, Ridgeway theorizes a process by which generalized status beliefs might be created through microlevel interactions. As nominal characteristics (e.g., gender, race, or age) come to be associated with different levels of exchangeable resources, situational beliefs about ability are likely to emerge among interactants and then diffuse.
Find this resource:

Ridgeway, Cecilia. 2002. Inequality, status, and the construction of status beliefs. In Handbook of Sociological Theory. Edited by Jonathan H. Turner, 323–340. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
In this valuable and clear overview of social psychological theories of status processes, Ridgeway lays the groundwork for exploring the relationship between status groups and interactional status orders. Specification of the relationship between micro- and macro-level status processes, Ridgeway argues, provides a better understanding of status inequality, which is often ignored in favor of inequalities based on wealth or power.
Find this resource:

Ridgeway, Cecilia, Elizabeth Heger Boyle, Kathy J. Kuipers, and Dawn T. Robinson. 1998. How do status beliefs develop? The role of resources and interactional experience. American Sociological Review 63.3: 331–350.
DOI: 10.2307/2657553Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Evidence drawn from two experiments extends the insights of status construction theory by demonstrating how differences in pay level among interactants comes to generate status beliefs, both for the advantaged and disadvantaged, about the justifiability of these differences. This research shows how resource advantages can turn into shared beliefs about status differences, thus reinforcing the legitimacy of these advantages through a self-fulfilling process.
Find this resource:

Ridgeway, Cecilia, and Kristan Glasgow Erickson. 2000. Creating and spreading status beliefs. American Journal of Sociology 106.3: 579–615.
DOI: 10.1086/318966Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This article provides empirical support for status construction theory’s central hypotheses about the generation and diffusion of status beliefs. Drawing on data from two experiments, the authors show how those who hold particular status beliefs prompt others to adopt similar beliefs and how witnesses of interactions involving those who hold status beliefs are influenced by these beliefs as well.
Find this resource:

Ridgeway, Cecilia L., and Henry A. Walker. 1995. Status structures. In Sociological perspectives on social psychology. Edited by Cook, Karen S., Gary Alan Fine, and James S. House, 281–310. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This work provides a valuable overview of status processes from a social psychological perspective. Among other topics, the authors offer a critical review of the state of research on status structures as they relate to expectations states theory, status characteristics, legitimacy, and the emergence of status hierarchies.
Find this resource:

Strodtbeck, Fred L., Rita M. James, and Charles Hawkins. 1957. Social status in jury deliberations. American Sociological Review 22.6: 713–719.
DOI: 10.2307/2089202Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
In this early naturalistic study of small group interactions, the authors draw on evidence from mock jury deliberations to show that status characteristics—in this case, occupational status and gender—affect actors’ levels of participation, influence, and perceived competence in these jury deliberations.
Find this resource:

Organizational Status

The study of organizational status came into prominence through the article “A Status-Based Model of Market Competition” (Podolny 1993), in which the author argues that status processes play a crucial role in determining the structure of markets. One focus of subsequent work in this area is on the consequences of organizational status. Fombrun 1996, for example, argues for the market advantages that accrue from “reputational capital”; Phillips and Zuckerman 2001 provide evidence that status position helps determine a firm’s likelihood to conform to others, and Jensen 2006 shows how status concerns influence network ties. In addition, Lynn, et al. 2010 outline the mechanisms by which organizational status exerts its influence on network ties, production choices, and chances of organizational success. A second focus of work in this area is on the determinants of organizational status. Among other factors, research along these lines has explored the role of certification contests (Rao 1994), prevailing institutional logics (Lounsbury 2002), and third-party evaluations (Sauder 2008). Podolny 2005 provides a useful synthesis of work in this area.

Fombrun, Charles J. 1996. Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image. Boston: Harvard Business School.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Fombrun argues for the important role that reputation plays in organizational decision-making and success. The “reputational capital” of organizations is portrayed as an asset that can be used to gain competitive advantage in the market through its signaling capacity, even as its potential value is not always fully appreciated by managers.
Find this resource:

Jensen, Michael. 2006. Should we stay or should we go? Accountability, status anxiety, and client defections. Administrative Science Quarterly 51.1: 97–128.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Jensen hypothesizes that organizational “status anxiety” can lead firms to reconfigure their network ties. Specifically, the article provides evidence that increased accountability measures encourage firms to disassociate themselves from organizations with questionable standing in the field to protect their own reputation.
Find this resource:

Lounsbury, Michael. 2002. Institutional transformation and status mobility: The professionalization of the field of finance. Academy of Management Journal 45.1: 255–266.
DOI: 10.2307/3069295Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Examining the transformation of the dominant institutional logics in the field of finance, this work demonstrates how institutional context affects the types of status claims that can be made by organizations.
Find this resource:

Lynn, Freda B., Joel Podolny, and Lin Tao. 2010. A sociological (de)construction of the relationship between status and quality. American Journal of Sociology 115.3: 755–804.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Employing simulation data, the authors provide a thorough examination of the processes by which the status of an actor can become decoupled from the underlying quality that the status ideally signals. The study considers three mechanisms that lead to this type of decoupling: quality uncertainty, diffuse status characteristics, and self-fulfilling prophecies.
Find this resource:

Phillips, Damon J., and Ezra W. Zuckerman. 2001. Middle-Status conformity: Theoretical restatement and empirical demonstration in two markets. American Journal of Sociology 107.2: 379–429.
DOI: 10.1086/324072Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Building off of a classic research finding in social psychology about conformity, the authors show that middle-status organizations are pressured to conform to expectations of their field to be considered legitimate; alternatively, high-status actors are less compelled to conform because their legitimacy is secure; and low-status actors are less compelled to conform because their markets do not depend on their legitimacy.
Find this resource:

Podolny, Joel M. 1993. A Status-based model of market competition. American Journal of Sociology 98.4: 829–872.
DOI: 10.1086/230091Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This foundational piece on organizational status argues for the importance of status processes in determining the structure of markets. Pointing to evidence from the field of investment banking, Podolny shows how status position dictates producers’ activities in a market in terms of the types of goods they produce and with whom they will associate.
Find this resource:

Podolny, Joel M. 2005. Status signals: A sociological study of market competition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This book, currently the leading source on organizational status, integrates Podolny’s wide-ranging work on status dynamics in markets while synthesizing the growing literature in this area. Organized around the theme of status signals, this work addresses topics that include network effects on status, status leakage, status rewards, and the processes by which organizations indicate their status to others.
Find this resource:

Rao, Hayagreeva. 1994. The social construction of reputation: Certification contests, legitimation, and the survival of organizations in the American automobile industry; 1895–1912. Strategic Management Journal 15:29–44.
DOI: 10.1002/smj.4250150904Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Drawing on data from certification contests in the early stages of the American automobile industry, Rao shows how third parties help create organizational reputations and status hierarchies.
Find this resource:

Sauder, Michael. 2008. Interlopers and field change: The Entry of U.S. News into the field of legal education. Administrative Science Quarterly 53.2: 209–234.
DOI: 10.2189/asqu.53.2.209Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This article explores the processes by which third parties come to be seen as legitimate arbiters of status among those they evaluate. Focusing on how educational rankings were received by different audiences within a particular organizational field, Sauder argues that third-party legitimacy is best understood as an outcome of the relationships between actors within the institutions being ranked and powerful outside constituents.