Social status refers to the position of individuals or groups within a social hierarchy based on honor, prestige, and social value. It is associated with specific rights, responsibilities, privileges, and lifestyles, which society evaluates differently. Social status can be acquired in two main ways: achieved status, gained through personal effort and accomplishments such as education and income, and ascribed status, determined by characteristics such as age, gender, or ethnicity. However, status also depends on social recognition, as prestige must be acknowledged by others to be meaningful. Individuals and groups therefore seek to maintain or improve their social position, often resisting changes that threaten their status. Individuals in modern Western societies achieve all or most of their status through their proffesion and/or position in the workplace. This is due to the fact that proffesion, apart from ascribed reputation of the occupation, infers other socially important factors: income, educational achievement, social connections, authority and power. 

Status consistency refers to a state in which the status of an individual in one area is similar to the status that he or she has in other areas. People who possess higher status experience, on average, more positive emotions – happiness, pride, contentment, optimism – than individuals with lower status.   

Max Weber believed that in every society there are three relatively independent dimensions of inequality, that is, stratification: 1) material wealth, 2) status (social reputation), and 3) political power. Social status refers to the unequal distribution of prestige and honor between different social strata, which he calls all "status groups" (stand in German). Status group differences tend to crystallize and persist over a long period. With the creation of clear and defined differences between status groups, there comes a great reduction in informal and close relations between members of different status groups, and this is most pronounced in limiting marriages strictly between members of the same status group. When the formalization of the status groups begins to be accompanied by a formal-legal distinction of status group privileges, and when such a process is accompanied by a religious justification, then the status groups are transformed into different castes. According to Weber, status groups form part of the stratification system and are closely intertwined with the economic order. Over time, status groups and social classes become interconnected, as groups with high social prestige tend to accumulate wealth and power, while economically prosperous classes eventually gain higher social status. Building on Weber’s ideas, Benoit (1966) later referred to this process as the “status conversion mechanism.”

In his book Adolescent Society (1961), James Coleman studied status hierarchy in schools. Among adolescents, boys who were successful in sports had the highest reputation, and so was for the girls who had the greatest circle of friends, while social background and success in school did not have a great influence. In schools that attached great importance to sports competitions with other schools, successful athletes had an even higher social status.

In the book Poverty in the United Kingdom (1979), Townsend presents the results of a survey on poverty. He argues that poverty reduces the ability of families and individuals to adequately participate in social life and participate in other activities that are considered a normal part of life. The poor, in addition to not owning economic goods, also have a lower social reputation. Low social status itself leads to social exclusion and reduced opportunities to find employment.

Otis Dudley Duncan and Peter M. Blau, in The American Occupational Structure (1967), demonstrated that parents primarily pass on their social status to their children through educational attainment. Their findings suggested that mobility typically occurs through gradual, incremental steps rather than dramatic leaps up the social hierarchy.

                              Status Consumption

Thorstein Veblen, in The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899), studies the status consumption of the "leisure class", which consists of renters and absent property and business owners. Veblen rejects the idea of ​​completely rational economic behavior and believes that a large part of consumption, and thus production, can be explained by the desire of people to increase their own social status and reputation. To achieve this higher status, individuals, especially those belonging to the upper classes, indulge in the wasteful consumption of luxury goods. In countries that have great social and geographical mobility, such as the United States, luxury spending is the fastest and safest way to confirm one's social status. The wasteful spending of the leisure class has no function other than creating a social distinction that allows that class to reproduce the social hierarchy.

Jan Pakulski and Malcolm Waters use a neo-Weberian approach to the problem of classes in their book The Death of Class (1996). The authors believe that modern societies are transformed too much, in relation to the earlier ones, that they can no longer be considered class societies. The key processes that have led to such changes are: globalization, changes in the economy, new technologies, and political changes. In such circumstances, the political, social, and economic importance of class declines. In modern societies, "status conventionalism" prevails instead of class. This phrase refers to the situation in which inequalities in modern society are the product of the existence of different status groups, which differ from each other, primarily in prestige and different spending styles. Classes are no longer the main basis of the social identity of individuals, and therefore no longer the basis of their political and social behavior. Today's society is primarily a consumer society dominated by "status consumption". Dominant differences between status groups are in the domain of spending, and what distinguishes the "subclass", and what separates it most from other groups, is the inability to participate in status spending. It is the differences in status spending, and the prestige it brings, that are the sources of the main form of social stratification in the new age - status stratification.

Jean Baudrillard, in the books The System of Objects (1968) and The Consumer Society (1970), argued that goods are a sign that gives individuals a cultural identity. The sign constitutes a special material reality that is used for prestige, status, and thus for social differentiation. Industrial societies have a fixed and stable hierarchy of the sign that clearly distinguishes the real from the unreal, so the sign and reality are truly equivalent, and goods reflect social statuses.

Mary Douglas researches consumerism and consumer choices in the book The World of Goods: An Anthropological Approach to the Theory of Consumption (1978), co-written with the econometrist Baron Isherwood. In the authors' view, goods function is to create, communicate, and reproduce cosmologies. Douglas explores the cultural aspects of consumption and the symbolic meaning of goods within different societies. She argues that consumption is not merely about satisfying material needs but is deeply connected to social structures and cultural values. She claims that consumer behavior reflects broader societal patterns and is crucial in defining identity, social relationships, and class distinctions. The way goods are used and consumed is shaped by social norms, rituals, and the symbolic roles that goods play in society. The main claim is that the consumption of goods is a form of communication. The items people choose to consume and how they use them often reflect the values of the group or community they belong to. These goods can reinforce social hierarchies, demonstrate status, and express individual or collective identities. Thus, consumerism is not simply a matter of personal choice or economic function but is deeply embedded in the social fabric and carries meanings that go beyond their practical use. Goods are organized in ways that reflect the structure of society, such as categorizing goods based on their level of "purity" or "dirtiness," which mirrors cultural classifications and moral codes. For example, some goods are considered more "sacred" or "prestigious" while others are seen as "polluted" or "low-status."

In Popular Culture and High Culture (1974), Herbert Gans explores the many different cultural tastes that exist in the United States. He recognized five such different types of culture: 1) high culture - it is consumed by the upper class, and the creative and abstract aspects of art are emphasized; 2) upper middle culture - it is consumed by the upper middle class, this culture is less innovative, so too experimental and too "simple" content is rejected; 3) Lower Middle Culture - this is the dominant culture in America and it emphasizes easy-to-understand and easy-to-consume content; 4) lower culture - it is consumed by workers, and the most characteristic contents are action movies, rock and country music, family series and the yellow press; 5) low culture - it is consumed by the poorest people from the countryside, and the emphasis is on very easy and receptive content. The hierarchy of cultures and tastes is closely linked to differences in wealth, reputation, and power. The upper class finances and protects its culture, wanting to keep it to itself, while the differences in cultural spending between the middle and working class are still large.

In Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment Taste (1979), Pierre Bourdieu presents his macro theory and applies it to the relationship between class membership and consumption. Bourdieu argues that there are four types of “capital”: symbolic capital, cultural capital, economic capital, and social capital. Symbolic capital consists of prestige, status, titles, and reputation. A person's cultural capital depends on the amount of knowledge and the ability to use symbolic cultural forms that are associated with the top of the hierarchy within each field. Of all the forms of power and domination, the most important are symbolic power and symbolic violence. All cultural symbols - art, food and clothing patterns, science, religion, language - serve to pursue the interests of those in power. Those at the top of the hierarchy of a field use symbols to preserve, increase, and legitimize that power, so such strategies are a source of symbolic power and symbolic violence. Symbolic power and violence have the function of creating and increasing social "distinction". Society is filled with the great struggle to create social distinctions, because class struggles are, in essence, struggles to create a symbolic classification of people into distinct classes. Symbolic power and symbolic violence serve to create, legitimize, and preserve the distinctions that exist between social classes. The goal of those who exercise domination is to, with the help of symbolic power, present the relations of power so legitimate and self-evident that any attempt of resistance by the oppressed is extinguished. That is why self-restraint and self-censorship, imposed on themselves by oppressed actors, are the most effective forms of reproduction of power relations.

Bourdieu concluded that there are three hierarchically ordered types of aesthetic taste or style of cultural consumption: elite (legitimate), middlebrow, and popular (mass). Elite aesthetic taste characterizes, first of all, the dominant class. Each type of cultural consumption and taste serves to give individuals a sense of place within the social structure. The aesthetic taste of a person (elite, middlebrow, or mass) in one of the areas of cultural consumption (e.g., art) usually corresponds to the type of taste in other areas (e.g., fashion, sports, literature).

                           Expectation States Theory

Sociologists Joseph Berger and Morris Zelditch developed expectation states theory. Building on the work of Bales and other researchers, the theory examines inequalities in participation, influence, and decision-making. Bales, in Interaction Process Analysis: A Method for the Study of Small Groups (1950), developed a methodology used in observing and coding nonverbal actions and verbal statements in small groups, both in natural and in experimental settings. Bales wanted to find out how the behavior of one member of the group influenced the behavior of others. He found out that all statuses and characteristics of an individual are relative and vary in their salience and intensity depending on the group context.

Similarly, Expectation States Theory explains how status hierarchies emerge and develop within small, task-oriented groups. Berger and his colleagues observed that, even within a short period of interaction, some group members gain greater opportunities to contribute, perform tasks more frequently, receive more positive evaluations, and exert greater influence over group decisions. These interconnected patterns form what is known as a power and prestige order (Berger & Zelditch, 1998; Ridgeway, 1992).

A central concept of the theory is performance expectations, which refer to beliefs about an individual's future ability to perform a task. These expectations are often unconscious and develop through social interaction, observable behavior, and shared cultural beliefs. Group members form judgments about their own and others' competence, creating a general consensus about who is more or less capable. Individuals perceived as highly competent tend to receive greater influence and prestige, while those perceived as less competent occupy lower positions in the status hierarchy.

Research has particularly examined how status characteristics, including age, gender, and ethnicity, influence judgments of competence and work performance. Experimental studies have shown that an individual's perceived status can affect how others evaluate their abilities and contributions. Consequently, higher-status individuals may receive more favorable evaluations than lower-status individuals, even when their actual performance is not objectively better.

Status therefore influences not only observable behavior but also perceptions, thoughts, and emotional responses. High-status individuals are often viewed as more competent across different tasks, more suitable for leadership positions, and more socially important than their lower-status counterparts. These perceptions can reinforce existing inequalities and maintain established status hierarchies within groups.

Berger and his associates also distinguished between different types of status characteristics. Specific status characteristics refer to attributes with two or more states that are evaluated differently, with each state associated with particular expectations about performance. More broadly, status characteristics are traits that systematically create advantages or disadvantages for individuals during group interactions.

Diffuse status characteristics are social traits that influence how people are perceived in a wide range of situations. They involve differences in social value, expectations about performance on specific tasks, and general assumptions about a person’s competence. For example, men may be perceived as more competent than women not only in certain activities but also in areas such as intelligence and logical thinking. Research in the United States identifies race, gender, age, physical attractiveness, education, and occupation as diffuse status characteristics. People with more socially valued traits are often assumed to be more competent than those with less valued traits, which can influence social interactions.

Research based on expectation states theory shows that status within groups can be established through overt behaviors. Actions such as sitting at the head of a table, speaking confidently, maintaining an upright posture, and making direct eye contact can signal competence and create status. Joseph Berger and colleagues call these behaviors task cues because they indicate who appears most capable of completing a group task. Status can also develop through repeated interactions known as behavior interchange patterns. These occur when individuals’ behaviors reinforce an existing status hierarchy. For example, when one person regularly proposes ideas and another consistently agrees, the repeated exchange strengthens the first person’s higher status.

Expectation states theory has inspired three related approaches: status construction theory, status characteristics theory, and reward expectations theory. Each explains how individuals develop beliefs about status, competence, and social worth, and how these beliefs influence social interaction.

Status Construction Theory, developed by Cecilia Ridgeway, explains how characteristics that initially have no status significance can become associated with social status. When people observe a consistent relationship between a particular trait and a valued resource, they may begin to associate that trait with higher or lower status. For example, if blue-eyed individuals are frequently observed to be wealthy while brown-eyed individuals are more often poor, people may begin to perceive blue eyes as a sign of greater worth or deservingness. These beliefs can influence individuals’ behavior and spread through social interactions, reinforcing status differences.

Status Characteristics Theory explains how status-related beliefs influence behavior within task groups. It is based on five assumptions. First, status characteristics become important when they distinguish group members or relate directly to a task. Second, people generally assume that these characteristics are relevant to task performance unless proven otherwise. Third, status information is maintained and updated as group membership changes. Fourth, individuals combine all relevant status information to form overall expectations about each member’s performance. Finally, these expectations produce observable differences in social interaction. Individuals perceived as more competent tend to receive more opportunities to contribute, perform more frequently, receive more positive evaluations, and exert greater influence over group decisions.

Reward Expectations Theory, associated with Karen Cook, proposes that rewards influence perceptions of competence and status. In her 1975 work, Expectations, Evaluations, and Equity, Cook demonstrated that individuals receiving higher rewards tended to infer that they possessed greater task ability than those receiving lower rewards. Consequently, people may interpret higher rewards as evidence of superior competence or personal worth.

References:

Barber, Bernard. Social Stratification (1957);

Berger, Joseph, Thomas L. Conner, and M. Hamit Fisek. (eds.). Expectation States Theory: A Theoretical Research Program (1974);

Berger, J. & Zelditch Jr., M. (eds.) Status Characteristics and Social Interaction (1977);

     -     Status, Rewards, and Influence (1985);

     -     Theoretical Research Programs: Studies in the Growth of Theory (1993);

     -     Status, Power and Legitimacy: Strategies and Theories (1998);

Biddle, B. J. & Thomas, E. J. (eds.). Role Theory: Concepts and Research (1944);

Bourdieu. Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture (1977, in French 1970);

     -     Outline of a Theory of Practice (1977, in French 1972);

     -     Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste (1984, in French 1979);

     -     State Nobility: Elite Schools in the Field of Power (1998, in French 1989);

     -     The Logic of Practice (1990, in French 1980);

     -     Homo academicus (1990, in French 1984);

     -     Language and Symbolic Power (1991, in French 1982);

Burawoy. “Social Structure, Homogenization, and ‘‘The Process of Status Attainment in the United States and Great Britain”.’’, in American Journal of Sociology (1977);

Coleman. The Adolescent Society (1961);

     -     Public and Private High Schools: The Impact on Communities (1987);

Cook, Karen S. “Expectations, Evaluations, and Equity”, in American Sociological Review (1975);

Davis K. „Some Principles of Stratification", in  American Sociological Review (1945);

Elias. On the Process of Civilisation (Volume 3) (The Collected Works of Norbert Elias) (2012);

Epstein. Deceptive Distinctions: Sex, Gender and the Social Order (1988);

Gans. Popular Culture and High Culture (1974);

Featherman, David L., and Robert M. Hauser.  Opportunity and Change (1978);

Goldthorp. „The Study of Social Stratification in Great Britain: 1946-1976”, in Social Science Information (1977);

     -     Social Mobility and Class Structure in Modern Britain (1980); 

     -     The Constant Flux: A Study of Class Mobility in Industrial Societies (1992); 

     -     ‘‘Class Analysis and the Reorientation of Class Theory.’’ British Journal of Sociology (1993);

Hout, Michael ‘‘More Universalism, Less Structural Mobility: The American Occupational Structure in the 1980s.’’, in American Journal of Sociology (1988);

Hughes. The Sociological Eye: Selected Papers (1971);

Lenski. Power and Privilege (1966); 

Lijphart. Democracy in Plural Societies: A Comparative Exploration (1977);

Linton, R. The Study of Man (1936);

Lipset. Class, Status, and Power: Social Stratification in Comparative Perspective (1953);

     -     Social Mobility in Industrial Society (1959);

     -     Class, Status, and Power: Social Stratification in Comparative Perspective, 2nd ed. (1966);

     -     ‘‘Are Social Classes Dying?’’, in International Sociology (1991);

Lopreato. Class, Conflict, and Mobility: Theories and Studies of Class Structure (1972);

Merton. Social Theory and Social Structure (1949);

Mills. The Power Elite (1956);

Pakulski. The Death of Class (1996); 

Reiss, A. J., Jr. (with Duncan, O. D., Hatt, P. K., & North, C. C.) Occupations and Social Status (1961);

Ridgeway, C. L. (Ed.) Gender, Interaction, and Inequality (1992);

Roos, Patricia A. Gender and Work: A Comparative Analysis of Industrial Societies (1985);

Rossides, Daniel.  The American Class System (1976);

Runciman. „Towards a Theory of Social Stratification“, in Frank Parkin (ed.) The Social Analysis of Class Structure (1974);

Sewell, William H., and Robert M. Hauser. Education, Occupation, and Earnings: Achievement in the Early Career (1975);

Scott, J. Stratification and Power: Structures of Class, Status and Command (1996);

Shavit, Yossi, and Hans-Peter Blossfeld (eds.).  Persistent Inequality: Changing Educational Attainment in Thirteen Countries (1993);

Smith, R. D.“The Career of Status Crystallization: A Sociological Odyssey”, in Sociological Review Online (1996);

Sorokin. Social Mobility (1927);

Thye, Shane. “A Status Value Theory of Power in Exchange Relations”, in American Sociological Review (2000);

Treiman, D. J. Occupational Prestige in Comparative Perspective (1977);

Turner B. Status (1988);

Turner, Frederick. Social Mobility and Political Attitudes (1992);

Turner J. Societal Stratification: A Theoretical Analysis (1984);

Veblen. The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institutions (1899);

Warner. The Status System of a Modern Community, 2 vols. (1941, 1942);

Weber Max. Economy and Society: A New Translation (2019, in German 1922);

Zelditch, M., Jr. “Social Status”, in Sills, D. L. (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Social Sciences (1968).