
==== Front
PLoS One
PLoS One
plos
PLOS ONE
1932-6203
Public Library of Science San Francisco, CA USA

10.1371/journal.pone.0309135
PONE-D-24-10935
Research Article
People and Places
Population Groupings
Educational Status
Undergraduates
Medicine and Health Sciences
Public and Occupational Health
Behavioral and Social Aspects of Health
Research and Analysis Methods
Research Design
Survey Research
Questionnaires
Biology and Life Sciences
Psychology
Social Sciences
Psychology
Medicine and Health Sciences
Mental Health and Psychiatry
Biology and Life Sciences
Psychology
Emotions
Social Sciences
Psychology
Emotions
Social Sciences
Sociology
Culture
Cross-Cultural Studies
Research and Analysis Methods
Research Facilities
Research Laboratories
Status and subjective well-being: A conceptual replication and extension of Anderson et al. (2012)
Status and subjective well-being
Anderson Cameron Conceptualization Formal analysis Methodology Writing – original draft 1
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0652-5436
Hildreth John Angus D. Data curation Formal analysis Project administration Writing – review & editing 2 *
1 Walter A. Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California, United States of America
2 The Samuel Curtis Johnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell SC Johnson College of Business, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, United States of America
Böckerman Petri Editor
University of Jyvaskyla, FINLAND
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

* E-mail: hildreth@cornell.edu
18 9 2024
2024
19 9 e030913525 3 2024
5 8 2024
© 2024 Anderson, Hildreth
2024
Anderson, Hildreth
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Does the status people possess shape their subjective well-being (SWB)? Prior research that has addressed this question has been correlational. Therefore, in the current research, we provide causal evidence of this effect: In two experiments, we found that individuals reported higher SWB when their own status was higher compared to when it was lower. However, individuals’ SWB was not only shaped by their own status, but also by others’ status. Specifically, individuals reported higher SWB when others’ status was lower than when it was higher. Thus, people have a competitive orientation towards status; they not only want to have high status on an absolute level (e.g., to be highly respected and admired), but also to have higher status than others (e.g., to be more respected and admired than others). A standard self-affirmation manipulation was used in an attempt to mitigate individuals’ competitive orientation towards status, but only helped already high-status members feel happier in groups of high-status members, rather than help low-status members feel happier when they uniquely held low status.

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work. Data AvailabilityAll data files are available from the OSF database at the following link: https://osf.io/wkr5p/?view_only=09d16afc34f44f5996d64edf2bb9fd87.
Data Availability

All data files are available from the OSF database at the following link: https://osf.io/wkr5p/?view_only=09d16afc34f44f5996d64edf2bb9fd87.
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Does the status people possess shape their subjective well-being (SWB)–that is, people’s cognitive and affective evaluations of their lives [1]? Status is the respect, admiration, and voluntary deference individuals are afforded by others [2]. In a 2012 paper, Anderson and colleagues [3] hypothesized that status influences SWB because it affects the power and influence people possess in their interpersonal relationships [4] and shapes their sense of belonging and social acceptance [5]–variables that strongly affect SWB [e.g., 6, 7]. In addition, status might shape SWB because it affects their self-esteem; many studies have found a link between status and self-esteem [e.g., 8], and self-esteem is also tightly associated with SWB [9].

In support of this hypothesis, multiple studies have found a correlation between status and SWB. For example, an investigation of cohorts of students found that individuals ranked more highly as “leaders” by classmates were rated as more cheerful [10]. A large cross-cultural study found that around the world, people’s happiness was associated with the degree to which they felt respected by others and proud of something [11]. An examination of diverse kinds of social groups found that individuals rated as higher in status by fellow group members self-reported higher levels of SWB [3]. Other variables related to status, such as employment status, also predict SWB [e.g., 12].

Because the above evidence is correlational, it does not establish the causal effects of status. It is thus possible that the observed association between status and SWB was due to third variables or arose because SWB influences status rather than vice-versa. For example, individuals who have higher subjective well-being and who tend to feel happier might attain higher status [13].

The ambiguity in causal origins makes the use of experimental designs particularly important. To our knowledge, only one study used experimental methods to establish the causal effects of status on SWB. In Study 3 of Anderson et al. (2012), participants were shown a ladder with 10 rungs that represented the level of status people have in their important social groups. Depending on the condition, they were asked to compare themselves to the people either at the top or the bottom rung of the ladder, and to think of how the similarities and differences between them and the comparison target would affect a getting-acquainted interaction. In that study, participants in the high-status condition, who were asked to compare themselves to people at the bottom rung of the ladder, reported higher SWB than did participants in the low-status condition, who compared themselves to people at the top rung of the ladder.

However, that finding did not hold up in a subsequent replication [14]. Specifically, in an aggregate replication sample that included multiple laboratories, participants assigned to the high-status condition had slightly lower SWB, rather than higher, than those assigned to the low-status condition. It is possible that this different effect was due to the specific features of the manipulation. In the high-status condition, participants were asked to think about someone with low status, and in the low-status condition, participants were asked to think about someone with high status. Although the original reasoning behind this manipulation was that it would leverage dominance complementarity effects [e.g., 15], it is possible the manipulation might have inadvertently cognitively primed the opposite mindset than what was intended. By thinking about someone with high status, participants might have been placed in a high-status mindset.

The current research had three primary aims. First, we conducted a conceptual replication of Study 3 in Anderson et al. (2012), testing whether status does causally influence SWB, but using a different status manipulation than that used in the original study. Specifically, we gave participants false feedback about their status within a social group [e.g., 16–18]–a manipulation that has consistently been shown to successfully manipulate individuals’ sense of their own status vis-à-vis others. We expected status to causally affect SWB.

Second, in addition to examining the effect of individuals’ own status on their SWB, we examined the effect of others’ status on individuals’ SWB. According to many theories, the human desire for status is inherently competitive. People not only desire to receive a high level of respect, admiration, and deference from others–they desire to receive a higher level of respect, admiration, and deference than others receive [19–21]. By definition, this status-is-competitive account suggests that people will be happier when others possess low status, because that means their own relative position is higher.

However, there is surprisingly little research that directly addresses this claim. In fact, some research on self-esteem suggests that people do not hold a competitive orientation toward status within their groups. Specifically, Tyler and Blader [22] measured people’s self-perceptions of status on an absolute level (e.g., “Most members of [my group] respect me”) as well as their status relative to others (e.g., “My ideas get more attention than those of others”). Their findings suggested people’s self-esteem is shaped by their status on an absolute level but very little by their status on a relative level–that is, people seemed to have a non-competitive orientation towards status. As they concluded, “it appears that people focus primarily upon whether or not they are members ‘in good standing’ and not on whether they are in ‘better standing’ than other group members” [22, p. 830]. However, it is unclear whether their findings, which focused on self-esteem, would hold up for SWB.

Third, if status does have a causal effect on SWB, we sought to explore whether it is possible to mitigate its effects. Status hierarchies appear to emerge in all social groups, which means it is inevitable that some group members have higher status and others have lower status [23, 24]. If individuals’ status influences their SWB, however, this implies that some group members–namely those lower in status–will inevitably experience lower SWB. If that is the case, it is important to explore possible interventions or ways to mitigate the potential psychological damage of possessing lower status. To examine this question, we focused on self-affirmation, an exercise that focuses individuals’ attention on the values that are most important to them [25, 26]. In a prior study, participants were less interested in boosting their own status after they engaged in self-affirmation [27], which suggests self-affirmation might mitigate the effects of status on SWB because it makes status less important to the individual.

In sum, the current research aimed to conceptually replicate Anderson et al. (2012) and test whether status has a causal effect on SWB using experimental methods, test whether individuals’ SWB is affected by others’ status in addition to their own, and test whether self-affirmation mitigates the impact of status on SWB. We pursued these aims in two studies. In Study 1, we placed people into small groups, provided each of them with (false) feedback about their own and others’ status in the group, and assessed their SWB. Study 2 was preregistered (https://aspredicted.org/LK8_DTB). It used the same design as in Study 1, but also included a self-affirmation manipulation in which some participants were randomly assigned to self-affirm before they received their status feedback. Data and protocols for both studies are posted to OSF (https://osf.io/wkr5p/?view_only=09d16afc34f44f5996d64edf2bb9fd87).

Study 1

Methods

Participants

Participants were 230 undergraduate students from a West Coast university (41% male, 59% female; average age = 21.10 years, SD = 2.79) who were paid $15 or course credit. The sample size was determined by the size of the available pool of participants which was limited to undergraduate students. No other inclusion criteria were used. Participants were recruited between April 16, 2015, and October 2, 2015. The research in both studies was conducted in accordance with the principles expressed in the Declaration of Helsinki and the protocol was approved by The Committee for Protection of Human Subjects comprising the Institutional Review Boards of the University of California, Berkeley (IRB Approval ID: 2015-01-7044). All subjects in both studies gave their informed consent for inclusion before they participated in the study and were then debriefed at the end of the study. The study was completed when the available pool of participants ran out. Participants were asked to select all racial-ethnic categories to which they belonged; 66% selected Asian American, 20% selected White, 8% selected Latino, 2% selected African American, 1% selected Native American, and 11% selected “other.” During the initial questionnaire, described below, two attention check questions were included that asked participants to select specific responses, i.e., “If I am paying attention to this study, I will select the agree a little option,” and “If I am paying attention I will select this answer. /I will not select this answer.” This method of detecting inattentive participants has been used extensively in past research to increase the quality of data [e.g., 28]. Four participants failed attention check questions or had technical issues and were thus excluded from the analyses, leaving 226 participants.

Procedure and status manipulation

The status manipulation was based on prior research [e.g., 16–18]. We used a 2 (own status = high or low) X 2 (others’ status = high or low) between-subjects factorial design, in which we gave people feedback about their own and their fellow teammates’ status in their team, and then assessed their subjective well-being. Participants were randomly assigned to condition using a randomizer in the computer-mediated survey flow which randomly assigned participants to one of four conditions evenly.

Five participants were recruited for each laboratory session. In Phase 1 of the study, participants completed a questionnaire at individual workstations, which included measures (e.g., personality traits and emotion recognition) that provided an ostensive basis for the status manipulation in Phase 2. Phase 2 presented the status manipulation. Participants were first told that other members of their group had also completed the same questionnaire they had just completed. They were provided (false) summaries of other members’ personality and emotion-recognition scores, which ranged from high to low. All participants were shown the same set of false scores for their fellow teammates (see Appendix A in S1 Appendix). Participants were then told to rate, based on the scores they were provided, the status of each member of their group. They were told the aggregate status ratings of each group member would be used to determine which person would be selected as the leader of their group for a group exercise later in the study. Participants were not provided with their own scores and were led to believe that they and other group members only received other members’ scores, but not self-scores. This helped avoid a potential confound–namely, a situation in which participants observed that their scores were better (or worse) than others, and thus reacted to the subsequent status feedback based on fairness concerns. Without any information about their own personality and emotion-recognition scores, participants would be less likely to believe that the status distributions were unfair to them.

After a brief wait in which each group member’s status average status ratings were ostensibly calculated, participants were given false feedback regarding the status they and others were given (see Appendix B in S1 Appendix). Specifically, they were told that the range of possible status ratings was 1 to 7 and that their status (i.e. the median status ratings given to them by other members of their group) was either a 4 (in the own status = lower conditions) or a 6 (in the own status = higher conditions). They were also told that other group members’ average status (i.e. the median status ratings that all the other members of their group received) was either a 4 (in the others’ status = lower conditions) or 6 (in the other’ status = higher conditions). We used a 1 to 7 scale because that is the most used scale in status research in psychology [e.g., 3, 29], and therefore our findings could be directly compared to prior studies of status.

In Phase 3, participants completed three measures of subjective well-being, and manipulation and suspicion checks. At the end of the study, they were debriefed and paid. Three participants expressed suspicion about the status feedback; no findings changed from significant to non-significant when we included or excluded those participants. We thus included them.

Subjective well-being

Consistent with Anderson et al. (2012), we administered and combined the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule [30; for Positive Affect, α = 0.90, M = 4.44, SD = 1.05; for Negative Affect, α = 0.88, M = 2.75, SD = 1.03], and the Satisfaction with Life Scale, in which respondents provide a global, cognitive assessment of their life as a whole [31; SWLS; α = 0.81, M = 3.39, SD = 0.79].

Results and discussion

Manipulation check

Participants were asked, “In your group, how much status do you have?” and “What about others in your group? On average, how much status do others have in your group” on a scale from 1 (“Very little”) to 7 (“A lot”). The own status manipulation influenced participants’ ratings of their own status (Mhigh = 5.27, SD = 1.06; Mlow = 4.50, SD = 0.93) t(224) = 5.74, p < .001, d = 0.76, but not their ratings of others’ status (Mhigh = 4.77, SD = 0.88; Mlow = 4.65, SD = 0.96), t(224) = 0.94, p = .348, d = 0.13. The others’ status manipulation influenced participants’ ratings of others’ status (Mhigh = 5.21, SD = 0.93; Mlow = 4.21, SD = 0.57) t(224) = 9.80, p < .001, d = 1.30, but not ratings of their own status (Mhigh = 4.89, SD = 1.09; Mlow = 4.88, SD = 1.04), t(224) = 0.01, p = .989, d = 0.00. There were no significant interactions. Therefore, the manipulations were effective.

Hypothesis test

Fig 1 shows the effects of the different status distributions on subjective well-being. A two-way analysis of variance revealed a significant main effect for participants’ own status, in that participants reported higher subjective well-being when their status was higher than when it was lower, F(1, 222) = 24.91, p < .001, η2 = .101. This finding thus supports our hypothesis and conceptually replicates Anderson et al. (2012). There was also a significant main effect for others’ status, in that participants had higher subjective well-being when others’ status in the team was lower on average than when it was higher, F(1, 222) = 15.97, p < .001, η2 = .067. There was not a significant interaction between participants’ own and others’ status, F(1, 222) = 1.01, p = .317, η2 = .005.

10.1371/journal.pone.0309135.g001 Fig 1 Study 1: Average levels of subjective well-being broken down by condition.

Participants in the Low (/High) Own Status condition were told their own status was 4 (/6) out of 7. Participants in the Low (/High-) Others’ Status condition were told the median status of other members of their group was 4 (/6) out of 7. After receiving the status feedback, participants rated their SWB. The figure shows mean SWB scores for participants in each condition. Error bars represent standard errors of the mean.

It is interesting to note the simple effects. When participants’ own status was lower, they had higher subjective well-being when other team members’ status was also lower (M = .002, SD = .625) than when it was higher (M = -0.41, SD = 0.62), t(111) = 3.49, p = .001, d = 0.66. This finding is not particularly surprising, given the power of relative deprivation effects [31], and the dissatisfaction people feel when being worse off than others. However, even when participants’ own status was higher, they had higher subjective well-being when other team members’ status was lower (M = 0.33, SD = 0.64) than when it was higher (M = 0.08, SD = 0.57), t(111) = 2.15, p = .034, d = 0.40. Therefore, participants had higher subjective well-being when they alone had higher status than when they and their teammates all had higher (and equal) status (see Table 1).

10.1371/journal.pone.0309135.t001 Table 1 Means and standard deviations for SWB in Studies 1 and 2.

 Status Condition	Study 1	Study 2 Control	Study 2 Self-Affirm	
Own Status	Others’ Status	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	
High	High	0.08a	0.57	0.08A	0.51	0.34BD	0.51	
High	Low	0.33b	0.64	0.14A	0.66	0.18AD	0.62	
Low	High	-0.41c	0.62	-0.42C	0.64	-0.39C	0.73	
Low	Low	0.00a	0.63	0.04A	0.61	0.02A	0.63	
Within each study, different subscripts imply means differ significantly from each other at the p < .05 level. Higher values imply higher SWB.

Study 2

Is it possible to mitigate the effect of status on subjective well-being? Can any intervention cause people to feel better when their teammates have higher rather than lower status? To address this question, we examined whether asking participants to self-affirm would help mitigate the effects of status on subjective well-being, as prior research suggests that this intervention prompts individuals to be less interested in boosting their own status [27]. Therefore, Study 2 used the same design as in Study 1, but now included a self-affirmation manipulation for half of the participants. The methods and analysis plan for Study 2 were preregistered (https://aspredicted.org/LK8_DTB).

Methods

Participants

Participants were 422 undergraduate students (66% female; average age = 20.80 years, SD = 3.08) who were paid $10.00 or given course credit. A power analysis based on the effect sizes observed in Study 1 suggested that at least 72 participants were needed to achieve 80% statistical power (two-tailed; α = .05) for a two condition design (288 for an eight condition design). Given sample size recommendations for replication studies, we increased the target sample size to 400 participants, consistent with the target sample size of roughly 50 participants per condition used in Study 1. Again, the participant pool was limited to undergraduate students and no other inclusion criteria were used. Participants were recruited between November 28, 2017, and April 6, 2018. All participants provided informed consent in writing which was verified by an experimenter prior to the start of the laboratory session and were then debriefed at the end of the study. Prior to the debriefing, participants were asked whether they found anything strange or unusual about the study, and one participant expressed suspicion about the status feedback. However, none of the conclusions or significant results reported below change after excluding this participant, so their data are included. The attention check questions used in Study 1 were used again in Study 2. Seventeen participants failed attention check questions or had technical issues and were thus excluded from the analyses, leaving 405 participants. Participants were asked to select all racial-ethnic categories to which they belonged; 47% selected Asian American, 27% selected White, 10% selected Latino, 0% selected African American, and 7% selected “other,” and 8% declined to respond.

Procedure and values affirmation

The procedure, status manipulation, and measures were identical to Study 1, except we included a self-affirmation manipulation [25] right before participants received their status feedback. Those in the self-affirmation (/control) condition selected the three most important values (/least important values) from a list of 12 values that Cohen and colleagues [25] specified (membership in a social group [such as your community, racial group, or school club], relationships with friends or family, religious values, sense of humor, living in the moment, music, creativity, being good at art, politics, athletic ability, being smart or getting good grades, and independence). They then described why these values are important to them (/might be important to someone else), listed the top two reasons why the values are important to them (/might be important to someone else), and rated the extent to which they agree or disagree with 4 statements related to the values, e.g. “These values have influenced me (/some people).” Study was therefore a 2 (own status = high vs. low) x 2 (average status of other members in the team = high vs. low) x 2 (intervention: self-affirmation vs. no affirmation) between-subjects factorial design. As per Study 1, participants were randomly assigned to condition using a randomizer in the computer-mediated survey flow which randomly assigned participants to one of the eight conditions evenly.

Subjective well-being

As in Study 1, we administered and combined the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (for Positive Affect, α = 0.89, M = 4.49, SD = 1.02; for Negative Affect, α = 0.90, M = 2.52, SD = 1.11), and the Satisfaction with Life Scale (α = 0.80, M = 3.45, SD = 0.80).

Results and discussion

Manipulation check

The own status manipulation influenced participants’ ratings of their own status (Mhigh = 5.40, SDhigh = 0.90; Mlow = 4.25, SDlow = 0.96) t(400.8) = 12.45, p < .001, d = 1.24, but not their ratings of others’ status (Mhigh = 4.84, SDhigh = 0.93; Mlow = 4.79, SDlow = 1.05), t(397.2) = 0.56, p = .575, d = 0.06. The others’ status manipulation influenced participants’ ratings of others’ status (Mhigh = 5.40, SDhigh = 0.93; Mlow = 4.24, SDlow = 0.65) t(356.0) = 14.5, p < .001, d = 1.44, but not ratings of their own status, t(385.2) = -1.34, p = .181, d = -0.13. There were no interactions. Furthermore, the self-affirmation manipulation did not affect participants’ ratings of their own status(MSelf-Affirm = 4.82, SDSelf-Affirm = 1.08; MControl = 4.84, SDControl = 1.11), t(403) = -0.25, p = .803, d = -.03, ratings of others’ status (MSelf-Affirm = 4.89, SDSelf-Affirm = 0.95; MControl = 4.74, SDControl = 1.03), t(403) = 1.53, p = .126, d = 0.15, nor did it interact with the status manipulations in shaping participants’ ratings of their own or others’ status. Therefore, the status manipulations were effective in producing the effects and only the effects we intended, and the self-affirmation manipulation did not produce any unintended effects on participants’ status ratings.

Hypothesis tests

Fig 2 shows the pattern of results, split into the control (Panel A) and self-affirmation (Panel B) conditions. As shown, in the control condition, participants again had higher subjective well-being when they had higher rather than lower status, F(1, 200) = 12.63, p < .001, η2 = .059, as well as when others had lower rather than higher status F(1, 200) = 9.74, p = .002, η2 = .046. Therefore, these findings replicate the results from Study 1.

10.1371/journal.pone.0309135.g002 Fig 2 Study 2: Average levels of reported subjective well-being broken down by condition.

(A) Participants in the Control Condition did not affirm their values before receiving feedback on their status. (B) Participants in the Self-Affirm condition affirmed their values before receiving feedback on their status. Participants in the Low (/High) Own Status condition were told their own status was 4 (/6) out of 7. Participants in the Low (/High-) Others’ Status condition were told the median status of other members of their group was 4 (/6) out of 7. After receiving the status feedback participants rated their SWB. The figure shows mean SWB scores for participants in each condition. Error bars represent standard errors of the mean.

In contrast to Study 1, however, there was a significant interaction between own and others’ status, F(1, 200) = 5.33, p = .022 η2 = .026. Fig 2 shows that this interaction is due to participants experiencing especially lower subjective well-being when their own status was lower, and their teammates’ average status was higher (as opposed to when their own status was higher and their teammates’ average status was higher). Again, this finding makes sense in light of relative deprivation research [32], which would suggest that being lower in status than others is particularly damaging to individuals’ subjective well-being. In other words, when individuals possess higher status on an absolute level (6 out of 7), their subjective well-being is less damaged when others also have higher status on an absolute level; however, when individuals possess lower status on an absolute level (4 out of 7), their subjective well-being is particularly damaged when others have higher status on an absolute level. Being uniquely lower in status appears especially psychologically painful.

Turning to the self-affirmation manipulation, it did not moderate the effect of participants’ own status on their subjective well-being, F(1, 401) = 1.53, p = .217, ΔR2 = .004, nor the effect of others’ status on their subjective well-being, F(1, 401) = 1.19, p = .276, ΔR2 = .003. Therefore, the effects of own and others’ status on subjective well-being was robust and largely unaffected by the self-affirmation manipulation. However, Fig 2 shows one condition that did differ between the control and self-affirmation conditions: Specifically, when participants’ own status and their teammates’ average status were all higher, they had higher subjective well-being in the self-affirmation condition, than in the control condition (MSelf-Affirm = 0.34, SDSelf-Affirm = 0.51; MControl = 0.08, SDControl = 0.51), t(1, 98) = 2.64, p = .010, d = 0.53. In the control condition, participants did not experience very high subjective well-being when everyone in their group was accorded higher status. However, in the self-affirmation condition, participants did experience higher subjective well-being when everyone in their group was accorded higher status (see Table 1). This lends at least some optimism that people’s responses to status distributions can be changed.

Discussion

Two studies, one preregistered, found that individuals’ status had a causal effect on their subjective well-being. This finding provides a conceptual replication of Anderson et al. (2012), and suggests that the level of respect, admiration, and voluntary deference individuals are accorded by others does in fact shape their subjective well-being. That is, the correlations observed between status and subjective well-being in prior research might have stemmed from multiple causal forces. For example, being a happier person might have helped individuals achieve higher status, or third variables such as extraversion might have driven their effects (extraverts might tend to be happier and tend to achieve higher status). However, our findings suggest that the correlations observed are at the very least partly due to the causal effects of status.

Both studies also found that individuals’ subjective well-being was not only shaped by their own status, but also others’ status. Specifically, individuals had higher subjective well-being when others’ status was lower than when it was higher. This suggests that people have a competitive orientation towards status; they not only want to have high status on an absolute level (e.g., to be highly respected and admired), but also to have higher status than others (e.g., to be more respected and admired than others). This idea has important implications. First, it potentially helps explain the pervasiveness of status stratification in groups. Status differences might pervade teams because people prefer and seek a form of stratification—specifically, a form in which they are higher than others—over egalitarianism. People’s preferences might make egalitarianism highly unlikely. Second, this idea would suggest a somewhat provocative idea: that a fundamental human motive is substantially competitive in nature. Other fundamental motives, such as the needs for belongingness and autonomy, are not competitive, in that people do not seek to belong more than others or to be more autonomous than others [e.g., 33–35]. However, the desire for status might be unique among fundamental human motives in being competitive.

Study 2 asked whether self-affirmation might mitigate the effect of status on subjective well-being, and for the most part, the answer was “no.” Self-affirmation has been shown to affect a range of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors [for a review, see 26]. However, it did not moderate the effect of individuals own’ status, meaning individuals’ own status shaped their subjective well-being, regardless of whether they self-affirmed or not. It also did not moderate the effect of others’ status on subjective well-being, which indicates that individuals experienced higher subjective well-being when others’ status was lower, even if they self-affirmed. The one finding that was affected by self-affirmation was the condition in which participants were told that they and their fellow group members had all been accorded higher status: in the control condition, individuals did not respond with high subjective well-being, whereas in the self-affirmation condition, individuals responded with higher subjective well-being. This suggests that at the very least, self-affirmation might help individuals be happier in groups where members are all afforded higher levels of respect and admiration.

However, overall, the idea that self-affirmation did not moderate the effects of status on subjective well-being warrants discussion. One possibility is that the effects of status on subjective well-being are so strong and robust that they are immune to interventions; perhaps nothing can reduce the psychological sting of possessing low status or dampen the pleasure of possessing high status. Another possibility is that the impact of status on subjective well-being can be moderated, but one must use other interventions besides self-affirmation to do so. For example, perspective-taking manipulations have been shown to increase empathy and concern for others [36]. It is possible that when individuals take the perspective of others and become more empathic towards them, they no longer experience higher subjective well-being when those others have lower status, and perhaps even experience higher subjective well-being when those others have higher status.

These findings point to several directions for future research. First, that people had higher subjective well-being when others’ status was lower suggests that people have a highly competitive orientation towards status—they feel better when they are above others. This contrasts with research on self-esteem [22], which suggested that people are relatively unaffected by their relative status position vis-à-vis others. One possibility worth examining is whether the effects of others’ status on subjective well-being differ from the effects of others’ status on self-esteem. Second, as mentioned above, given the ineffectiveness of self-affirmation as a possible way to mitigate the effects of status on subjective well-being, future research should continue seeking to identify other interventions that might be more effective. Third, we focused on main effects of status on subjective well-being, but do individual differences moderate these effects? For example, does status affect subjective well-being more strongly for narcissists, who care more about status than others, as compared to non-narcissists? Prior work suggests that individuals can base their self-esteem on different sources [37]. For example, some individuals might base their self-esteem on their achievements more than others. Inasmuch as subjective well-being is tied to self-esteem [9], this suggests an intriguing possibility: individuals might also differ in the extent to which they base their subjective well-being on different sources, including status. Some might derive their happiness from their status far more than others. Future research could examine individual differences in the degree to which individuals derive their subjective well-being from their status, and test whether these differences moderate the effect of status on SWB.

A potential limitation of the current studies is the reliance on undergraduate student populations and the potential generalizability of the findings to other subject populations, although we note that prior research on status and well-being suggests findings in this domain do appear to generalize [e.g., 3]. Related, the current research was conducted in a Western context, and it is possible that the observed effects might be stronger or weaker in different cultural contexts. A recent and comprehensive review of the research literatures on status [38] revealed that the psychology of status and specifically the desire for status appears to be universal, applying cross-culturally, but leaves open the possibility that the effects of status might be stronger in different contexts. Future research should examine this possibility. Another limitation is the potential for demand effects where participants may have guessed the hypotheses and be prompted to behave in a certain manner. The debriefing in both studies did not uncover this issue but future research should consider alternative non-computer-mediated designs to remove this possibility.

In summary, the current research provided the most direct evidence that individuals’ status shapes their subjective well-being, found that individuals’ subjective well-being was shaped not only by their own status but also by others’, and that the effects of status on subjective well-being were largely immune to self-affirmation manipulations. These findings have several implication implications, including that individuals’ standing in their group affects their well-being, that the human desire for status appears to be competitive in nature, and that the impact of status on subjective well-being is robust and not easily mitigated. Of course, given the research was conducted on undergraduate students in one country, and conducted in the laboratory, future research should test these effects on a broader range of individuals, in diverse countries, and ideally in contexts outside the laboratory. Nonetheless, the current findings take an important step in elucidating the impact that individuals’ standing in their groups has on their well-being and psychological health.

Supporting information

S1 Appendix (DOCX)

10.1371/journal.pone.0309135.r001
Decision Letter 0
Böckerman Petri Academic Editor
© 2024 Petri Böckerman
2024
Petri Böckerman
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Submission Version0
1 May 2024

PONE-D-24-10935Status and subjective well-being: A conceptual replication and extension of Anderson et al. (2012)PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hildreth,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

 The revised version should address all comments. You may also note that unemployment is an important determinant of subjective well-being (https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1361).

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 14 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Petri Böckerman

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 

Additional Editor Comments:

The revised version should address all comments.

Comments from PLOS Editorial Office:

We note that one or more reviewers has recommended that you cite specific previously published works. As always, we recommend that you please review and evaluate the requested works to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. It is not a requirement to cite these works. We appreciate your attention to this request.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The topic is fascinating, but a thorough restructuring of the content is necessary. I kindly request the esteemed author to revise the entire article with a deeper and more coherent perspective, taking into consideration the suggested changes. Afterward, please resubmit it for further review. I believe this feedback will be valuable in improving the quality of your work.

Best regards.

Abstract

1. The could benefit from a clearer structure. Consider breaking it down into distinct sections, such as Introduction, Methods, Results, and Conclusion.

2. Begin with a concise introduction to provide context and importance of the research question.

3. Provide more details about the experiments conducted, including sample size, demographics, and any relevant variables controlled for.

4. Expand on the implications of the findings for theory and practice.

introduction

• Consider providing a bit more context on the theoretical frameworks that underpin the relationship between status and SWB, such as social comparison theory or self-esteem theory.

• The introduction clearly outlines the three primary aims of the current research, including a conceptual replication of previous findings, examination of the effect of others' status on SWB, and exploration of potential interventions.

• To enhance the quality of your introduction, consider incorporating the following references:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10943-020-01151-z

http://jpcp.uswr.ac.ir/browse.php?a_id=787&sid=1&slc_lang=fa&ftxt=0

• Conclude the introduction by summarizing the main points discussed and clearly transitioning to the subsequent sections of the paper, such as the methodology and results.

• Ensure the introduction sets the stage effectively for the reader and generates interest in the research questions addressed.

Study 1

1. It's important to clarify whether the participant pool was limited to undergraduate students or if it included individuals from other backgrounds.

2. Specify if there were any inclusion criteria other than being an undergraduate student (e.g., age range, academic major) to provide a clearer picture of the sample.

3. Ensure clarity in the description of the manipulation process. For instance, it's mentioned that participants were provided with false feedback about their status and others', but it's not entirely clear how this feedback was presented and if there were any variations in presentation among conditions.

4. Clarify the rationale behind using a 1 to 7 scale for status ratings and ensure that this choice aligns well with the manipulation and the constructs under investigation.

5. Provide details on the selection and construction of attention check questions to ensure they effectively measure participants' engagement and attentiveness.

6. Provide effect sizes (e.g., Cohen's d) for all significant findings to supplement the significance testing and enhance the interpretation of results.

7. Consider discussing any potential limitations of the study, such as the generalizability of findings beyond the undergraduate student population or the potential impact of demand characteristics on participants' responses.

8. Provide detailed descriptions of the figures and tables in the text to guide readers in understanding the key findings presented in visual format.

9. Ensure that the study adheres to ethical guidelines, particularly regarding informed consent, debriefing procedures, and handling of participant data.

Study 2

• Provide more detailed information about the rationale behind the sample size selection and power analysis. Justify why 400 participants were targeted for the study.

• Consider providing more information on the demographic characteristics of the participants beyond just race and gender. Factors such as socioeconomic status, cultural background, and education level may influence subjective well-being and could be relevant to the study.

• it would be beneficial to include a rationale for choosing the specific values included in the values affirmation manipulation. Justify why these values were selected and how they relate to the study's objectives.

• Provide more details on the randomization procedure to ensure that participants were evenly distributed across conditions.

• Ensure clarity in the presentation of results. Some sentences are convoluted and could be simplified for better comprehension.

• When reporting statistical results, include effect sizes along with p-values to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the findings.

• Consider including a table summarizing the main results to aid readers in quickly understanding the key findings.

• Provide more detailed interpretations of the results, particularly regarding the implications of the interaction effects observed in the study.

• Propose avenues for future research based on the study's findings, including potential follow-up experiments or longitudinal studies to further explore the effectiveness of interventions on subjective well-being.

discussion

1. there are some instances where the phrasing could be clarified for better understanding. For example, in the sentence "That is, while the correlations observed between status and SWB in prior research might have stemmed from multiple causal forces," it could be clearer if you specify what these multiple causal forces might be.

2. When discussing Study 2, where the authors explored the potential moderating effect of self-affirmation on the relationship between status and SWB, it would be beneficial to clearly delineate the main findings. Make it explicit which aspects of the relationship were affected by self-affirmation and which were not.

3. it could be beneficial to delve deeper into potential alternative explanations. For instance, apart from the proposed causal effect of status on SWB, are there other variables or mechanisms that could explain the observed relationship? Discussing potential alternative explanations would strengthen the robustness of the findings.

4. Provide more detailed suggestions for future studies. For example, in addition to examining individual differences in the relationship between status and SWB, what specific aspects of personality or social context might moderate this relationship? Providing concrete research questions and hypotheses for future studies would enrich the discussion.

5. Discuss how cultural differences might influence the relationship between status and SWB. Are there cultural norms or values that could affect how individuals perceive and respond to status? Considering cultural variations would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the findings and their generalizability.

6. Conclude the discussion by summarizing the key findings, implications, and avenues for future research. Reinforce the significance of the findings in advancing understanding of the relationship between status and SWB, while also acknowledging limitations and areas for further exploration.

Reviewer #2: The discussion section of the article feels somewhat abrupt and lacks depth in its analysis. The discussion transitions quickly between different ideas without providing a thorough exploration of each point. For instance, while the competitive orientation towards status is briefly mentioned, further elaboration on its theoretical implications and practical relevance is warranted. Additionally, the finding that self-affirmation does not significantly moderate the effect of status on SWB requires more nuanced interpretation and consideration of alternative explanations.

Also, I question the suitability of undergraduate students as a sample population for examining the hypothesis addressed in this study. Typically in their twenties and yet to embark on their professional careers, undergraduate students may not undergo significant status changes in the short term, potentially limiting the generalizability of findings. Moreover, it appears that the study overlooks addressing the limitation of generalizing conclusions drawn from the experiments.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

10.1371/journal.pone.0309135.r002
Author response to Decision Letter 0
Submission Version1
13 May 2024

Responses to reviewer comments have been made in the response to reviewer comments note attached. For reference the comments have been copied below.

Response to Reviewers

[Original text shown indented in italics]

PONE-D-24-10935

Status and subjective well-being: A conceptual replication and extension of Anderson et al. (2012)

PLOS ONE

Dear [ANONYMIZED],

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The revised version should address all comments. You may also note that unemployment is an important determinant of subjective well-being (https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1361).

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 14 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Petri Böckerman

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

RESPONSE: Thank you for your and the review team’s comments and advice and for the opportunity to submit a revised manuscript. As requested we have included this Response to Reviewers as well as a marker-up and unmarked version of the revised manuscript. We confirm the following:

• We don’t wish to submit an updated financial disclosure.

• We have resubmitted our figure files in tif format per the guidelines.

• The lab protocols have been submitted to OSF (where the data had been stored) rather than protocols.io to reduce the burden on readers having to navigate between different systems.

• We have ensured the revision meets PLOSOne’s formatting guidelines. Thank you for sharing the templates.

• We have included the full ethics statement in the Methods sections of Study 1. Specifically, we have edited the prior statement to now read: “The research in both studies was conducted in accordance with the principles expressed in the Declaration of Helsinki and the protocol was approved by The Committee for Protection of Human Subjects comprising the Institutional Review Boards of the University of California, Berkeley (IRB Approval ID: 2015-01-7044). All subjects gave their informed consent for inclusion before they participated in the study. and were then debriefed at the end of the study.”

• We also included the citation relating to the relationship between unemployment and subjective health-assessments in the revised manuscript (Bockerman & Ilmakunnas, 2009).

Additional Editor Comments:

The revised version should address all comments.

Comments from PLOS Editorial Office:

We note that one or more reviewers has recommended that you cite specific previously published works. As always, we recommend that you please review and evaluate the requested works to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. It is not a requirement to cite these works. We appreciate your attention to this request.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments: Thank you for clarifying.

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer 1 comments

Reviewer #1: The topic is fascinating, but a thorough restructuring of the content is necessary. I kindly request the esteemed author to revise the entire article with a deeper and more coherent perspective, taking into consideration the suggested changes. Afterward, please resubmit it for further review. I believe this feedback will be valuable in improving the quality of your work.

Best regards.

RESPONSE: We have made substantial revisions to the paper, throughout all sections, based on your comments, the other reviewer’s comments, and the editor’s suggestions. We discuss below how we addressed each of your comments in turn.

Abstract

1. The could benefit from a clearer structure. Consider breaking it down into distinct sections, such as Introduction, Methods, Results, and Conclusion.

2. Begin with a concise introduction to provide context and importance of the research question.

3. Provide more details about the experiments conducted, including sample size, demographics, and any relevant variables controlled for.

4. Expand on the implications of the findings for theory and practice.

RESPONSE: Thank you for this suggestion. We examined the abstracts of several articles published in PLOS ONE and found that most of them used the same structure in the abstract that we did; fewer used the breakdown you suggested. Therefore, in keeping with what appears to be more of the norm in PLOS ONE articles, we retained the original structure of our abstract.

introduction

• Consider providing a bit more context on the theoretical frameworks that underpin the relationship between status and SWB, such as social comparison theory or self-esteem theory.

• The introduction clearly outlines the three primary aims of the current research, including a conceptual replication of previous findings, examination of the effect of others' status on SWB, and exploration of potential interventions.

• To enhance the quality of your introduction, consider incorporating the following references:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10943-020-01151-z

http://jpcp.uswr.ac.ir/browse.php?a_id=787&sid=1&slc_lang=fa&ftxt=0

• Conclude the introduction by summarizing the main points discussed and clearly transitioning to the subsequent sections of the paper, such as the methodology and results.

• Ensure the introduction sets the stage effectively for the reader and generates interest in the research questions addressed.

RESPONSE: Based on your suggestions, we elaborated on why status might shape SWB, particularly the possibility that status shapes self-esteem, which in turn influences SWB. We also included a statement at the end of the introduction that summarized its main points, which helped transition to the “roadmap” that outlined the two studies we conducted. We considered incorporating the two references you mentioned, but upon reading them, failed to grasp their relevance to the current research.

Study 1

1. It's important to clarify whether the participant pool was limited to undergraduate students or if it included individuals from other backgrounds.

RESPONSE: In the methods sections of both studies, we specify that “Participants were XXX undergraduate students…” To remove any doubt of the subject population we have clarified that the participant pool in each study “was limited to undergraduate students.”

2. Specify if there were any inclusion criteria other than being an undergraduate student (e.g., age range, academic major) to provide a clearer picture of the sample.

RESPONSE: We have clarified in the methods section to each study of the revised manuscript that “No other inclusion criteria were used.”

3. Ensure clarity in the description of the manipulation process. For instance, it's mentioned that participants were provided with false feedback about their status and others', but it's not entirely clear how this feedback was presented and if there were any variations in presentation among conditions.

RESPONSE: To clarify the status manipulation process, we have added two appendices in the revised manuscript with the exact details of the process and have clarified what information was presented to all participants and what information was provided just to those in specific conditions.

4. Clarify the rationale behind using a 1 to 7 scale for status ratings and ensure that this choice aligns well with the manipulation and the constructs under investigation.

RESPONSE: In the methods section of Study 1, we have further clarified that “We used a 1 to 7 scale because that is the most used scale in status research in psychology (e.g., Anderson et al., 2001; Cheng et al., 2013).” The definition of status used in the manipulations “That is, how much should each member be respected and admired in the group, how much should they lead the group’s task, and how much should others voluntarily defer to them?” (see Appendices), is consistent with the definition of status used in the introduction (second sentence): “Status is the respect, admiration, and voluntary deference individuals are afforded by others.”

5. Provide details on the selection and construction of attention check questions to ensure they effectively measure participants' engagement and attentiveness.

RESPONSE: In the revised manuscript, we have clarified what attention checks were used to ensure participants were attentive: “During the initial questionnaire, described below, two attention check questions were included that asked participants to select specific responses, i.e., “If I am paying attention to this study, I will select the agree a little option,” and “If I am paying attention I will select this answer. /I will not select this answer. This method of detecting inattentive participants has been used extensively in past research to increase the quality of data (e.g., Shamon & Berning, 2020).” We note that attention checks of this nature are very common in psychological research (e.g., Huan & Bowling, 2015; Kam & Meyer, 2015; Meade & Craig, 2012; Shamon & Berning, 2020).

Huang JL, Bowling NA, Liu M, Li Y. Detecting insufficient effort responding with an infrequency scale: Evaluating validity and participant reactions. Journal of Business and Psychology. 2015;30:299-311.

Kam CCS, Meyer JP How careless responding and acquiescence response bias can influence construct dimensionality: The case of job satisfaction. Organizational research methods. 2015;18(3):512-541.

Meade AW, Craig SB. Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological methods. 2012;17(3):437.

Shamon H, Berning CC. Attention Check Items and Instructions in Online Surveys with Incentivized and Non-Incentivized Samples: Boon or Bane for Data Quality?. Survey Research Methods. 2020;14(1):55-77.

6. Provide effect sizes (e.g., Cohen's d) for all significant findings to supplement the significance testing and enhance the interpretation of results.

RESPONSE: Thank you for highlighting. Effect sizes (Cohen’s d and partial eta squared) have been added to all significant results in both studies in the revised manuscript.

7. Consider discussing any potential limitations of the study, such as the generalizability of findings beyond the undergraduate student population or the potential impact of demand characteristics on participants' responses.

RESPONSE: We have added a limitation section to the General Discussion rather than to each study which highlights these potential issues. Specifically, we comment “A potential limitation of the current studies is the reliance on undergraduate student populations and the potential generalizability of the findings to other subject populations, although we note that prior research on status and well-being suggests findings in this domain do appear to generalize (e.g., Anderson et al., 2012). Another limitation is the potential for demand effects where participants may have guessed the hypotheses and be prompted to behave in a certain manner. The debriefing in both studies did not uncover this issue but future research should consider alternative non-computer mediated designs to remove this possibility.”

8. Provide detailed descriptions of the figures and tables in the text to guide readers in understanding the key findings presented in visual format.

RESPONSE: Legends have been ad

Attachment Submitted filename: ResponseToReviewers.2024.05.10.docx

10.1371/journal.pone.0309135.r003
Decision Letter 1
Böckerman Petri Academic Editor
© 2024 Petri Böckerman
2024
Petri Böckerman
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Submission Version1
7 Aug 2024

Status and subjective well-being: A conceptual replication and extension of Anderson et al. (2012)

PONE-D-24-10935R1

Dear Dr. Hildreth,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Petri Böckerman

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

I am happy with the revised paper and responses.

Reviewers' comments:

10.1371/journal.pone.0309135.r004
Acceptance letter
Böckerman Petri Academic Editor
© 2024 Petri Böckerman
2024
Petri Böckerman
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
23 Aug 2024

PONE-D-24-10935R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hildreth,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Petri Böckerman

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE
==== Refs
References

1 Diener E , Diener M , Diener C . Factors predicting the subjective well-being of nations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1995 Nov; 69 (5 ):851–64.7473035
2 Magee JC , Galinsky AD . 8 Social Hierarchy: The Self-Reinforcing Nature of Social Hierarchy. Acad Manag Ann. 2008 Jan 1; 2 (1 ):351–98.
3 Anderson C , Kraus MW , Galinsky AD , Keltner D . The Local-Ladder Effect. Psychol Sci. 2012 May 31; 23 (7 ):764–71.22653798
4 Berger J , Rosenholtz SJ , Zelditch M . Status Organizing Processes. Annu Rev Sociol. 1980 Jan 1; 6 (1 ):479–508.
5 Thibaut JW , Kelley HH . The Social Psychology Of Groups. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1959.
6 Baumeister RF , Leary MR . The Need to belong: Desire for Interpersonal Attachments as a Fundamental Human motivation. Psychol Bull. 1995; 117 (3 ):497–529.7777651
7 Kifer Y , Heller D , Perunovic WQE , Galinsky AD . The Good Life of the Powerful. Psychol Sci. 2013 Jan 15; 24 (3 ):280–8.23322701
8 Gruenewald TL , Kemeny ME , Aziz N . Subjective social status moderates cortisol responses to social threat. Brain Behav Immun. 2006; 20 :410–419.16412608
9 Schimmack U , Diener E . Predictive validity of explicit and implicit self-esteem for subjective well-being. J Res Pers. 2003; 37 (2 ):100–106.
10 Weisfeld GE , Bloch SA , Bloch SA . Possible Determinants of Social Dominance among Adolescent Girls. J Genet Psychol. 1984 Mar; 144 (1 ):115–29.
11 Tay L , Diener E . Needs and subjective well-being around the world. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2011; 101 (2 ):354–65.21688922
12 Böckerman P , Ilmakunnas P . Unemployment and self‐assessed health: evidence from panel data. Health Econ. 2009; 18 (2 ):161–179.18536002
13 Harms PD , Roberts BW , Wood D . Who shall lead? An integrative personality approach to the study of the antecedents of status in informal social organizations. J Res Pers. 2007 Jun; 41 (3 ):689–99. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2006.08.001
14 Klein RA , Vianello M , Hasselman F , Adams BG , Adams RB Jr , Alper S , et al . Many Labs 2: Investigating Variation in Replicability Across Samples and Settings. Adv Meth Pract Psychol Sci. 2018; 1 (4 ):443–490.
15 Tiedens LZ , Fragale AR . Power moves: Complementarity in dominant and submissive nonverbal behavior. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003; 84 (3 ):558–68. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.84.3.558 12635916
16 Kennedy JA , Anderson C . Hierarchical rank and principled dissent: How holding higher rank suppresses objection to unethical practices. Organ Behav Hum Dec. 2017 Mar; 139 :30–49.
17 Leary MR , Cottrell CA , Phillips M . Deconfounding the effects of dominance and social acceptance on self-esteem. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2001; 81 (5 ):898–909.11708565
18 Willer R. Groups Reward Individual Sacrifice: The Status Solution to the Collective Action Problem. Am Sociol Rev. 2009 Feb; 74 (1 ):23–43.
19 Bendersky C , Hays NA . Status Conflict in Groups. Organ Sci. 2012 Apr; 23 (2 ):323–40.
20 Cheng JT , Tracy JL . Toward a unified science of hierarchy: Dominance and prestige are two fundamental pathways to human social rank. In: Cheng JT , Tracy JL , Anderson C , editors. The psychology of social status. New York, NY: Springer; 2004. p. 3–27.
21 Hardy CL , Van Vugt M . Nice Guys Finish First: The Competitive Altruism Hypothesis. Pers Soc Psychol B. 2006 Oct; 32 (10 ):1402–13.
22 Tyler TR , Blader SL . Autonomous vs. comparative status: Must we be better than others to feel good about ourselves? Organ Behav Hum Dec. 2002 Sep; 89 (1 ):813–38.
23 Hogan R. A socioanalytic theory of personality. In Page MM , editor. Nebraska symposium on motivation. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press; 1983. p. 55–89.
24 Leavitt HJ . Top down: Why hierarchies are here to stay and how to manage them more effectively. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press; 2005.
25 Cohen GL , Garcia J , Apfel N , Master A . Reducing the Racial Achievement Gap: A Social-Psychological Intervention. Science. 2006 Sep 1; 313 (5791 ):1307–10.16946074
26 Sherman DK . Self-Affirmation: Understanding the Effects. Soc Personal Psychol Compass. 2013 Nov; 7 (11 ):834–45.
27 Sivanathan N , Pettit NC . Protecting the self through consumption: Status goods as affirmational commodities. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2010; 46 (3 ):564–70.
28 Shamon H , Berning C . Attention check items and instructions in online surveys with incentivized and non-incentivized samples: Boon or bane for data quality?. Surv Res Methods. 2020; 14 (1 ):55–77.
29 Cheng JT , Tracy JL , Foulsham T , Kingstone A , Henrich J . Two ways to the top: evidence that dominance and prestige are distinct yet viable avenues to social rank and influence. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2013; 104 (1 ):103–125.23163747
30 Watson D , Clark LA , Tellegen A . Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988; 54 (6 ):1063–70.3397865
31 Diener E , Emmons RA , Larsen RJ , Griffin S . The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment. 1985; 49 (1 ):71–5.16367493
32 Crosby F. A model of egoistical relative deprivation. Psychol Rev. 1976; 83 (2 ):85–113.
33 De Cremer D , & Leonardelli GJ . Cooperation in social dilemmas and the need to belong: The moderating effect of group size. Group Dyn-Theor Res. 2003; 7 (2 ):168–174.
34 Leary MR , Kelly KM , Cottrell CA , Schreindorfer LS . Construct validity of the need to belong scale: Mapping the nomological network. J Pers Assess. 2013; 95 (6 ): 610–624.23905716
35 Pickett CL , Gardner WL , Knowles M . Getting a Cue: The Need to Belong and Enhanced Sensitivity to Social Cues. Pers Soc Psychol B. 2004; 30 (9 ): 1095–1107.
36 Underwood B , Moore B. Perspective-taking and altruism. Psychol Bull. 1982; 91 (1 ): 143–173.
37 Crocker J , Wolfe CT . Contingencies of self-worth. Psychol Rev. 2001 Jul; 108 (3 ):593–623.11488379
38 Anderson C , Hildreth JA , Howland L . Is the desire for status a fundamental human motive? A review of the empirical literature. Psychol Bull. 2015 May; 141 (3 ):574–601.25774679
