ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2020
Psychological foundations of human status allocation.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- People are less likely to selfishly deceive those who achieved status through virtue rather than dominance or competence.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Ethics trumps resources in women's and men's evaluations of potential mates and competitors.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Expression of prestige through authentic pride, not dominance through hubristic pride, promotes fairness in ultimatum bargaining.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Articulatory effects on perceptions of men's status and attractiveness.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Status-impact assessment: is accuracy linked with status motivations?Evolutionary human sciences · 2023Article
- Cheating at the Top: Trait Dominance Explains Dishonesty More Consistently Than Social Power.Personality & social psychology bulletin · 2022Article
- When fertile, women seek status via prestige but not dominance.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022Article
- Children's social evaluation toward prestige-based and dominance-based powerholders.BMC research notes · 2022Article
- Dominance in humans.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2022Review
- The evolution of shame and its display.Evolutionary human sciences · 2022Review
- Direct punishment and indirect reputation-based tactics to intervene against offences.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2021Article
- The content and structure of reputation domains across human societies: a view from the evolutionary social sciences.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2021Article
- Cues of Social Status: Associations Between Attractiveness, Dominance, and Status.Evolutionary psychology : an international journal of evolutionary approaches to psychology and behavior · 2021Article
- Reply to Cheng et al.: Benefit generation dominates cost infliction in explaining cross-national status allocations.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021Article
- Dominance is necessary to explain human status hierarchies.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Competing theories of status allocation posit divergent conceptual foundations upon which human status hierarchies are built. We argue that the three prominent theories of status allocation-competence-based models, conflict-based models, and dual-pathway models-can be distinguished by the importance that they place on four key affordance dimensions: benefit-generation ability, benefit-generation willingness, cost-infliction ability, and cost-infliction willingness. In the current study, we test competing theoretical predictions about the relative centrality of each affordance dimension to clarify the foundations of human status allocation. We examined the extent to which American raters' (
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.