Fpsyg 07 00334

ORIGINAL RESEARCH
published: 30 March 2016

doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00334
Winners, Losers, Insiders, and

Outsiders: Comparing Hierometer
and Sociometer Theories of
Self-Regard
Nikhila Mahadevan 1*, Aiden P. Gregg 1 , Constantine Sedikides 1 and
Wendy G. de Waal-Andrews 2
1
Centre for Research on Self and Identity, School of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK,
2
Department of Social Psychology, Tilburg University, Tilburg, Netherlands
What evolutionary function does self-regard serve? Hierometer theory, introduced here,
provides one answer: it helps individuals navigate status hierarchies, which feature zero-
sum contests that can be lost as well as won. In particular, self-regard tracks social
status to regulate behavioral assertiveness, augmenting or diminishing it to optimize
performance in such contests. Hierometer theory also offers a conceptual counterpoint
that helps resolve ambiguities in sociometer theory, which offers a complementary
account of self-regard’s evolutionary function. In two large-scale cross-sectional studies,
we operationalized theoretically relevant variables at three distinct levels of analysis,
Edited by:
namely, social (relations: status, inclusion), psychological (self-regard: self-esteem,
Michael W. Kraus,
Yale University, USA narcissism), and behavioral (strategy: assertiveness, affiliativeness). Correlational and
Reviewed by: mediational analyses consistently supported hierometer theory, but offered only mixed
Liudmila Liutsko, support for sociometer theory, including when controlling for confounding constructs
Barcelona Biomedical Research Park,
Spain (anxiety, depression). We interpret our results in terms of a broader agency-communion
Stephen Garcia, framework.
University of Michigan, USA
Keywords: hierometer theory, sociometer theory, status, inclusion, self-regard, self-esteem, narcissism,
*Correspondence:
assertiveness
Nikhila Mahadevan
n.mahadevan@soton.ac.uk
Specialty section:
INTRODUCTION
This article was submitted to
Personality and Social Psychology, The human self is notoriously hard to pin down. Frustrated, some modern philosophers have
a section of the journal questioned its very existence (e.g., Metzinger, 2003). Yet the self still somehow matters: people
Frontiers in Psychology want their self, whatever it is, to be “good.” In other words, they want to achieve positive self-
Received: 14 October 2015 regard (Sedikides and Gregg, 2008).1 And understandably so: positive self-regard provokes pleasant
Accepted: 23 February 2016 feelings whereas negative self-regard provokes painful ones (Gregg et al., 2011).
Published: 30 March 2016 But why should such a hedonic contingency exist in the first place? Otherwise put, what
Citation: ultimate function might self-regard serve? Various theories have addressed this question. For
Mahadevan N, Gregg AP, Sedikides C
and De Waal-Andrews WG (2016) 1
The terms self-regard and self-esteem are often used interchangeably. Here, we use the term self-regard as an umbrella term
Winners, Losers, Insiders,
to denote any global evaluation of the self, and the terms self-esteem and narcissism to refer to two types of self-regard. We
and Outsiders: Comparing are not the first to characterize self-esteem and narcissism as alternative ways of evaluating the self; several other researchers
Hierometer and Sociometer Theories have also made this distinction (Baumeister et al., 2003; Kernis, 2003; Paulhus et al., 2004). We elaborate on these distinctions
of Self-Regard. Front. Psychol. 7:334. later, but mention them immediately to pre-empt confusion. To anticipate one of our key contentions: we shall argue on
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00334 theoretical grounds that self-esteem and narcissism serve different functional roles in social life.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1 March 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 334

Mahadevan et al. Hierometer and Sociometer Theories of Self-Regard
example, terror management theory (Pyszczynski et al., 2004) an intrapsychic signal that one’s social acceptance has dropped,
claims that the purpose of self-regard is to buffer the potentially perhaps critically. This signal, if sufficiently urgent, motivates
paralyzing terror that humans experience on contemplating individuals to act in ways that restore or reinforce social
death. Alternatively, self-determination theory (Deci and Ryan, acceptance (i.e., its imperative function). Thus, the sociometer
2000) claims that self-regard does not serve any specific purpose, system is said to operate rather like the digestive system: an
but that its character depends on whether or not the social empty stomach (cf. low social acceptance) leads to unpleasant
environment satisfies fundamental needs. hunger pangs (cf. low self-esteem) that prompt one to fill one’s
However, perhaps the leading contemporary account of the stomach by ingesting food (cf. regain social acceptance by acting
function of self-regard is provided by sociometer theory (Leary prosocially). Fundamentally, then, sociometer theory is a theory
et al., 1995). This posits that self-regard operates as part of an of insiders and outsiders.
adaptive psychological system that fitted ancestral human beings
to social living. In this paper, both to address ambiguities in Sociometer Theory: Empirical Evidence
sociometer theory, and to make new intellectual headway, we Sociometer theory enjoys empirical support. In particular, there is
introduce a novel alternative account of self-regard’s evolutionary good evidence that self-esteem serves its hypothesized indicative
function: hierometer theory. We outline the fundamentals about function, and mixed evidence that it serves its hypothesized
both hierometer theory and sociometer theory and review the imperative function.
empirical evidence for them. We then report on a research
program evaluating whether and to what extent patterns of Indicative Function: Tracking Social
association between variables at three different levels of analysis
(social, psychological, behavioral) tend to confirm or infirm each
Acceptance
of the theories. Consistent with sociometer theory, self-esteem covaries with
perceptions of social acceptance and with levels of social
Sociometer Theory: Theoretical Outline connectivity (Leary et al., 1995; Leary et al., 2001, Study 3;
Sociometer theory starts from the premise that human beings Denissen et al., 2008, Study 5). Self-esteem is also higher to the
have a fundamental need to belong (Baumeister and Leary, extent that individuals believe that they possess traits liable to
1995). Satisfying this need is advantageous: group members, promote social acceptance or social approval (MacDonald et al.,
when cooperating, afford one another significant opportunities 2003; Anthony et al., 2007a). In addition, anticipated levels of
for mutual gain (von Mises, 1963; Nowak and Highfield, 2011; self-esteem—after performing various actions, or after various
Wilson, 2012). Accordingly, if individuals are excluded from key events occur—covary with how individuals expect others will
social networks, their prospects for surviving and reproducing react ( Leary et al., 1995, Studies 1 and 2; Koch and Shepperd,
are impaired. It is therefore plausible to hypothesize that a 2008, Studies 3 and 4). Finally, receiving rejection feedback, real
dedicated psychological system evolved to encourage social or imagined, from personal or impersonal sources, lowers self-
acceptance (Leary et al., 1995). Such a system would serve two esteem (Leary et al., 1998; Zadro et al., 2004; but see Blackhart
complementary functions, which we here label indicative and et al., 2009; Bernstein et al., 2013).
imperative.
The indicative function would be to track an individual’s Imperative Function: Prompting
level of social acceptance (or, more anthropomorphically, to Affiliative Behavior
“monitor” it). Logically, to enjoy the benefits that accrue Consistent with sociometer theory, socially excluded individuals
from mutually supportive relationships, some level of social evaluate others more favorably, express a stronger desire to
acceptance is required. To the extent that individuals achieve work with them, and report a greater interest in making new
such social acceptance, they will enjoy higher relational value, friends (Maner et al., 2007). They also conform more to collective
defined as the extent to which (they believe that) other group opinion (Williams et al., 2000) and tailor their purchases toward
members consider it worthwhile to associate with them (Leary, products that promote inclusion (Mead et al., 2011). In addition,
1999, 2005). Accordingly, a system designed to track one’s individuals with low self-esteem opt to join groups only when
social acceptance—in particular, to pick up on interpersonal acceptance in them is guaranteed or undemanding, consistent
cues that might portend lower relational value—would be with their being unwilling to risk further rejection (Haupt and
useful. If such cues were detected, the relevant imperative Leary, 1997; Anthony et al., 2007b).
function of the system would be triggered. It would propel Contrary to sociometer theory, however, social exclusion leads
an individual to act so as to meet a minimal level of social individuals to derogate those who exclude them (Leary et al.,
acceptance. In particular, if social acceptance diverged from this 1995; Bourgeois and Leary, 2001), reduces their empathy for and
minimum, then the system would seek to reduce this divergence, willingness to help others generally (Twenge et al., 2007), and
by prompting an individual to engage in remedial prosocial increases their overall levels of hostility and aggression (Twenge
behaviors. et al., 2001; Buckley et al., 2004). Moreover, individuals with low
Sociometer theory contends that self-regard—more self-esteem are relatively less likely to initiate social interactions
specifically, self-esteem—serves both these functions. Initially, it and new relationships (Baumeister et al., 2003; Anthony et al.,
tracks levels of social acceptance, by rising and falling in tandem 2007b). Such anti-social reactions seem unlikely to promote
with them (i.e., its indicative function). A fall in self-esteem sends social acceptance or augment relational value.

Hierometer Theory: Theoretical Outline 1995). That is, individuals, based on their best reckonings,
Like sociometer theory, hierometer theory proposes that self- either escalate (i.e., intensify) contests or de-escalate (i.e.,
regard serves an evolutionary function. Unlike sociometer defuse) contests. In humans, escalation requires more assertive
theory, it proposes that this function is to navigate status behavior, whether in attack or defense; de-escalation, in contrast,
hierarchies. Specifically, hierometer theory proposes that self- requires more acquiescent behavior, whether in surrender or
regard operates both indicatively—by tracking levels of social withdrawal. These alternative behavioral strategies have also
status—and imperatively—by regulating levels of status pursuit been termed hawk and dove (Maynard Smith, 1982). The
(Figure 1). former offers higher reward at greater risk, the latter lower
Status hierarchies are pervasive (Sidanius and Pratto, 1999; reward at lesser risk. Both can be adaptive, depending on the
Sapolsky, 2005). They exist in both humans and animals, in circumstances.
simple and complex societies, and in formal and informal groups Hierometer theory proposes that higher self-regard prompts
(Mazur, 1985; Anderson et al., 2001, 2006). Moreover, these the adoption of more hawkish strategies, and lower self-regard
hierarchies matter: higher-status individuals enjoy better health the adoption of more dovish ones. As such, self-regard is part of
and well-being (Marmot, 2004; Sapolsky, 2005), a wider choice a dedicated system that evolved to regulate behavior adaptively
of romantic partners (Betzig, 1986), and greater reproductive when navigating status hierarchies. To be adaptive, self-regard
success (von Rueden et al., 2008, 2011). must predict the relative success of hawkish strategies when
higher, and of dovish strategies when lower. Logically, this
Given the significance of status hierarchies, a dedicated can only be the case if self-regard does indeed track some
psychological system is liable to have evolved to help individuals characteristic that predicts the relative success of those strategies.
navigate them successfully (cf. Gilbert, 2000; Sloman, 2008). What could that characteristic be? Social status is a leading
Certainly, high status is desirable given the benefits it brings, and contender. Here, we define it as the respect, admiration, and
the desire to achieve it is often considered fundamental (Barkow, importance that society at large confers upon an individual
1975, 1980; Frank, 1985; Marmot, 2004; Anderson et al., 2015). (Magee and Galinsky, 2008; Fiske, 2010; Huo et al., 2010).
Nonetheless, the indiscriminate pursuit of ever higher status Higher-status individuals can afford to adopt more hawkish
is not adaptive. This is because competing for status involves strategies. This is because, in order for them to have attained
entry into zero-sum contests that can be lost as well as won. higher status in the first place, several factors would have had
Accordingly, the pursuit of status is risky. Potential costs range to operate in their favor. Such factors might have included a
from the psychologically uncomfortable (Ridgeway and Berger, fund of pre-existing resources to draw on (Magee and Galinsky,
1986) to the physically lethal (Wrangham and Wilson, 2004). The 2008), or a superior ability to produce goods and services
upshot is that individuals must pursue status judiciously. (Klein, 2010). Where present, such propitious factors would
Consider, by analogy, the game of poker (Sklansky, 1994). objectively increase the likelihood that adopting a hawkish
Here, players compete to win a pot of money. Each player is dealt strategy—that is, escalating contests through assertive behavior—
a private hand of cards, some of which, in certain combinations, would work better. In poker terms, higher-status individuals
are of higher value than others, leading to “good hands” versus would hold a “good hand,” making it more adaptive for them
“bad hands.” One player begins the round by placing a bet, and to “raise.” However, where such factors are absent, as they
all players then respond in turn. Each player may either raise (i.e., often are among lower-status individuals, a dovish strategy—
increase the amount bet), fold (i.e., opt out of the round, losing de-escalating contests through acquiescent behavior—would
the amount bet), or check (i.e., stay in the game, matching the work better. In poker terms, lower-status individuals would
amount bet). The round continues until only one player remains, hold a “poor hand,” making it more adaptive for them to
who then wins the pot, or until two or more players remain, in “fold.”
which case the player with the best hand then wins the pot in a Note here some key differences between hierometer theory
public showdown. and dominance theory (Barkow, 1975, 1980), another alternative
In poker, players play each round by considering their own to sociometer theory (e.g., Leary et al., 2001). Dominance
cards, their opponents’ likely cards, and the relevant stakes. theory, plausibly interpreted, states that self-esteem tracks, not
On this basis, they decide to raise or fold (checking being levels of social acceptance or relational value, but instead
the intermediate option). Similarly, in social life, individuals levels of “dominance” or “prestige,” by which some social
navigate status hierarchies by considering their own abilities, or psychological, rather than behavioral, construct is meant.
their opponents’ likely abilities, and the costs and benefits For example, according to Barkow (1975), “[to] evaluate the
of competition. On this basis, they decide whether or not self as higher than others is to maintain self-esteem (p.
to enter a contest, and whether or not to persist in it. In 554)” and “[. . .] approbation and respect permit the self
poker, players generally adopt the strategy of raising when to evaluate itself as being of higher standing than others,
their hands seem comparatively good, and folding when thereby maintaining self-esteem (p. 555–556, italics added).”
their hands seem comparatively poor. That is, they “know Barkow (1980) proposes that people pursue various “prestige
when to hold ‘em, know when to fold ‘em” (Schlitz, 1978). strategies” to maintain their standing, and draws analogies
Similarly, in social life, people generally adopt the strategy of with social rank in other species. Accordingly, the term
engaging in contests they expect to win and avoiding contests “status” might be reasonably substituted for “dominance” or
they expect to lose (Sloman and Price, 1987; Gilbert et al., “prestige” here, especially given the key role that attention

and respect play in Barkow’s characterization (Anderson recall occasions on which they “felt secure in their self-
et al., 2001, 2006; Fiske, 2010). If so, then dominance worth” versus “felt like a failure”—thereby manipulating their
theory, like hierometer theory, states that higher social status state self-esteem—they recall more assertive behaviors and
promotes higher self-esteem. However, insofar as dominance acquiescent behaviors respectively (De Waal-Andrews, 2012,
theory emphasizes the critical importance of social status unpublished).
for reproductive success, it can be interpreted as proposing Several studies also show that higher and lower self-regard are
that self-regard operates homeostatically, motivating individuals respectively associated with the adoption of more risk-seeking
to attain and maintain sufficient levels of social status and risk-averse strategies. For example, individuals with higher
(Anderson et al., 2015), much as sociometer theory proposes self-esteem prefer risky gambles over certain gains on a monetary
happens with respect to levels of social inclusion (Baumeister task (Josephs et al., 1992), at least when potentially regret-
and Leary, 1995). In contrast, hierometer theory proposes inducing feedback on foregone options is offered. Moreover,
that self-regard operates non-homeostatically, regulating the when telling a joke or completing a creativity test, they are
behavior strategies that individuals adopt so that they match more likely to “go for gold” than to “play it safe”—an effect
rather than modify their current status. Hence, dominance amplified under conditions of psychological threat (Landau
theory and hierometer theory make distinct predictions. and Greenberg, 2006). Individuals with high self-esteem also
The former predicts that lower self-regard, tracking lower make riskier personal decisions on interpersonal vignettes even
status, should lead to increased behavioral assertiveness, controlling for trait anxiety, with the effect being partly mediated
as a form of adaptive compensation. The latter predicts by success expectancies and failure-related feelings (Wray and
that lower self-regard, tracking lower status, should lead to Stone, 2005).
increased behavioral acquiescence, as a form of adaptive
consolidation. Thus, hierometer theory, far from being a The Sociometer and the Hierometer:
restatement of dominance theory, is an empirically testable Toward Conceptual Coordination
alternative to it. How do sociometer theory and hierometer theory relate to one
In brief, hierometer theory proposes that self-regard acts as another? Are they antagonistic or complementary? The answer, it
a crucial psychological mediator: it bridges the gap between turns out, hangs on how one interprets sociometer theory, and on
social status and assertive behavior by tracking the former and which formulation of it one emphasizes, for one ends up dealing
regulating the latter, thereby enabling individuals to navigate with theoretical constructs that are broader or narrower in scope,
status hierarchies, as their status best allows. Fundamentally, and defined with greater or lesser precision. Our summary of
then, hierometer theory is a theory of winners and losers. sociometer theory above blends (intentionally) two versions of the
theory, original and revised.
Hierometer Theory: Existing Evidence The original version of sociometer theory (Leary and Downs,
Hierometer theory already enjoys some empirical support. 1995; Leary et al., 1995) emphasizes how self-esteem tracks
Assorted findings are consistent with self-regard serving both its social acceptance, by which is implied some sort of community
hypothesized indicative and imperative functions. belongingness, or social inclusion. For example, Leary (2004,
p. 374), recounting the original version, states that “only those
Indicative Function: Tracking Social who have established mutually supportive relationships with
people can count on others’ assistance in terms of food sharing,
Status physical protection, and care when ill, injured, or old. An
Socioeconomic indicators (i.e., income) modestly predict trait individual who does not maintain a minimal level of social
self-esteem (Twenge and Campbell, 2002). In addition, state acceptance is at a decided disadvantage compared to one who
self-esteem increases or decreases respectively when students is warmly accepted [. . .] humans [. . .] possess a strong and
are notified of academic successes or failures (Crocker et al., pervasive need for acceptance and belongingness [. . .] [italics
2002, 2003), when job candidates encounter a more or less added].”
smartly dressed competitor (Morse and Gergen, 1970), and In contrast, the revised version (Leary and Baumeister, 2000)
when participants are assigned to the roles of supervisors or emphasizes how self-esteem tracks relational value, defined as the
subordinates (Wojciszke and Struzynska-Kujalowicz, 2007, Study degree to which other people regard their relationship with the
2). Finally, from a neurological point of view, some brain circuits individual as important or valuable overall, for whatever reason.
seem to be specialized to identifying one’s place in the status For example, Leary (2005, p. 86) states that “Many kinds of events
hierarchy (Zink et al., 2008). can lower people’s self-esteem—failure, rejection, embarrassing
situations, negative evaluations, being outperformed by others,
Imperative Function: Regulating and so on—but, from the standpoint of sociometer theory, these
Assertive Behavior all involve events that potentially lower people’s relational value
Trait self-esteem positively predicts self-reports of more in the eyes of others [italics added]” (see also Kirkpatrick and
assertive behavior (“interpersonal dominance”), both on Ellis, 2001; Leary et al., 2001, p. 907).
standard questionnaires (Leary et al., 2001) and on behavioral Accordingly, the revised version of sociometer theory is
vignettes (De Waal-Andrews, 2012, unpublished). In pitched at a broader level of analysis than the original version
addition, when participants are alternately instructed to is. Relational value, as a construct, is broad enough to cover

any reason for self-esteem’s rising and falling that involves versus warmth, predicted self-esteem. In addition, Anthony
social interaction. However, social inclusion, as a construct et al. (2007a), when testing how well different types of traits—
if understood as community belongingness, is narrower, and namely, “communal qualities” versus “social commodities”—
excludes many such reasons. In particular, one can enjoy high independently predicted self-esteem, listed “popular” and “social
status, by being respected or admired for being competent, status” as examples of the latter. However, popularity and status
without enjoying high inclusion, by being liked or loved for are not only psychological in nature, but also social.
being warm—and vice versa (Cuddy et al., 2008). However,
the evidence suggests that status, so conceived, can affect self-
esteem independently of inclusion, so conceived (e.g., Leary et al., Hierometer Theory: Encompassing
2001: Study 1; Koch and Shepperd, 2008). Consequently, the Narcissism Too
original version of sociometer theory cannot account for such We have so far alternated between using the term “self-
findings, only the revised version. More generally, the original regard,” mainly in respect of hierometer theory, and the term
version characterizes self-esteem primarily in terms of the super- “self-esteem,” mainly in respect of sociometer theory. And
dimension of communion, which comprises such factors as intentionally so: for self-regard is a broader construct than self-
inclusion, warmth, and affiliativeness, rather than in terms of esteem, and hierometer theory explicitly allows for the possibility
the (orthogonal) super-dimension of agency, which comprises that other types of self-regard might serve its prescribed
such factors as status, competence, and assertiveness (Foa, 1961; indicative and imperative functions. We have one particular
Wiggins, 1979; McCrae and Costa, 1989; Moskowitz, 1994; candidate in mind: narcissism.
Cuddy et al., 2008; Huo et al., 2010). This is problematic, because Narcissism, for our purposes, is a normally distributed
self-esteem may actually be more agency-based. For example, trait, and may be regarded as the continuous subclinical
Wojciszke et al. (2011) found that self-ascribed agentic traits counterpart of the categorical personality disorder (Baumeister
(e.g., “clever”) predicted self-esteem better than self-ascribed et al., 2003; Kernis, 2003; Campbell and Foster, 2007; Miller
communal traits (e.g., “good-natured”; though see Gebauer et al., et al., 2014). Its antecedents, correlations, and consequences have
2013, for some moderators). In addition, Zeigler-Hill (2010) been extensively researched (Paulhus et al., 2004; Rhodewalt
reported that eight standard measures of self-regard were at least and Peterson, 2009; Campbell and Miller, 2011), often in
as strongly linked to agentic traits as they were to communal ones. conjunction with self-esteem (Sedikides et al., 2004; Lee et al.,
Hence, it is important to be theoretically precise about 2013, Study 1). As most commonly operationalized (but see
self-esteem’s agentic role. The original version of sociometer Pincus et al., 2009, for one of several alternatives), narcissism
theory neglects it by emphasizing community belongingness. entails an interest in leadership and authority, a propensity
The revised version partly rectifies this neglect by allowing for grandiosity and exhibitionism, and a sense of entitlement
for the possibility of many types of relational value. However, combined with a manipulative streak (Raskin and Hall, 1981;
the revised theory still does not specify the details of self- Ackerman et al., 2011). In romantic relationships, moreover,
esteem’s agentic role, nor does it differentiate self-esteem’s agentic narcissists prefer being admired over being loved, pursue short-
role from its communal role. Hierometer theory breaks new term rather than long-term relationships, and evaluate mates
theoretical ground by specifying precisely how (social) status, based on external characteristics rather than inner qualities
(psychological) self-esteem, and (behavioral) assertiveness might (Campbell, 1999; Brunell and Campbell, 2011; Holtzman and
interact as part of an evolutionarily adaptive system. Moreover, Strube, 2011). Accordingly, narcissism has been hypothesized to
with this agentic role specified, the communal role played by involve a surfeit of agency alongside a deficit in communion
self-esteem comes into sharper focus. In particular, the original (Campbell et al., 2002; Sedikides et al., 2002; Morf et al., 2011).
version of sociometer theory can be plausibly interpreted as If this characterization is correct, then one might expect
specifying precisely how (social) inclusion, (psychological) self- narcissism to be particularly likely to track social status and
esteem, and (behavioral) affiliativeness might interact as part of regulate assertive behavior, as hierometer theory specifies.
evolutionarily adaptive system. Thereafter, it becomes possible Conversely, one might expect narcissism to be less likely
to empirically test whether and to what extent these agentic to track social inclusion and regulate affiliative behavior,
and communal roles are supported or refuted by patterns of as sociometer theory specifies. Thus, hierometer theory, by
empirically observed correlations. encompassing narcissism too, opens up fruitful avenues for
A further virtue of hierometer theory’s specificity is that, empirical investigation (cf. Back et al., 2009) and adds to the
in clearly distinguishing between different levels of analysis, literature exploring narcissism’s evolutionary origins (Holtzman
including in the original version of sociometer theory, it and Strube, 2011).
encourages the operationalization of constructs at corresponding It should be noted that attempts have been made to account for
levels, a finesse that some prior research has not observed. narcissism in terms of sociometer theory. In particular, narcissism
For example, Koch and Shepperd (2008), in testing how in this connection has been described as a dysfunction, where
well-acceptance (i.e., inclusion) and competence independently those who exhibit it believe that “others regard them more
predicted self-esteem, although they tested a communal construct favorably and accept them more enthusiastically than is, in fact,
against an agentic one, nonetheless confounded social and the case” (Leary and Downs, 1995, p. 138). In other words, levels
psychological levels of analysis, respectively. Arguably, they of self-regard in narcissists are no longer an accurate guide to
should have tested how inclusion versus status, or competence their objective levels of social inclusion or relational value. But

if so, then sociometer theory does not so much account for social, psychological, and behavioral variables more definitively.
narcissism as undergo qualification in the light of its existence; for For example, Mahadevan et al. (2015) found that expectations
in narcissists, self-regard does not function as sociometer theory of higher and lower future social status or inclusion—both
prescribes. In contrast, hierometer theory offers a positive and manipulated via bogus test feedback—independently led to
constructive account of the function of narcissism, which can be higher and lower self-esteem, thereby validating the indicative
put to the empirical test. functions of self-esteem specified by both hierometer theory and
To be clear, we regard self-esteem as the prototypical form sociometer theory.
of self-regard, and thus the primary construct to consider
in evaluating functional theories. Nonetheless, narcissism is Hypotheses
still perhaps the best known subtype of self-regard, and its In sum, in regards to hierometer theory, we hypothesized that
concurrent consideration—especially given the affinity between status would correlate positively with self-esteem as well as
the agentic emphasis of hierometer theory and the agentic roots narcissism; that self-esteem and narcissism would each correlate
of narcissism—is well-justified, and potentially enlightening. positively with assertiveness; and that self-esteem and narcissism
would each mediate the link between status and assertiveness.
In regards to sociometer theory, we hypothesized that inclusion
Goals and Features of the Current would correlate positively with self-esteem. Evidence for the link
Research between self-esteem and affiliativeness is mixed. However, as low
Here, we report a systematic program of correlational research self-esteem is theorized to prompt greater affiliativeness in order
with several interlocking goals and features. to repair levels of social inclusion, we tentatively hypothesized
First, the research program is designed to test hierometer that self-esteem would correlate negatively with affiliativeness.
theory, by examining whether and to what extent its core Furthermore, we hypothesized that self-esteem would mediate
constructs—status, self-regard, and assertiveness—interrelate as the link between inclusion and affiliativeness.
predicted. Second, it is designed to test sociometer theory in an
exactly parallel manner. Do its core constructs—inclusion, self-
regard, and affiliativeness—also interrelate as predicted? Third, MATERIALS AND METHODS
the program operationalizes relevant constructs at various levels
of analysis, by distinguishing among two types of social relations Overview
(i.e., status, inclusion), psychological self-perception (i.e., self- We conducted two studies. Each featured shared and unique
esteem, narcissism), and behavioral strategy (i.e., assertiveness, elements. The shared elements were designed repeatedly
affiliativeness). Fourth, the program features a comprehensive to test our focal hypotheses concerning hierometer theory
analytic approach, to meet the goals above. To begin with, and sociometer theory. To this end, both studies assessed
it looks at simple and partial correlations between (a) social social relations (status and inclusion), psychological self-
relations and self-regard, and (b) self-regard and behavioral perception (self-esteem and narcissism), and behavioral strategy
strategy. This permits separate tests of whether the data support (assertiveness and affiliativeness). The unique elements of the
or refute the indicative and imperative functions hypothesized studies were designed to rule out plausible alternative hypotheses
by hierometer theory and sociometer theory. Fifth, the program and to advance theoretical understanding. To this end, Study 1
proceeds to test—for the first time we believe—whether and also assessed depression, and Study 2 additionally also anxiety.
to what extent self-regard mediates the link between social Regarding the shared elements of both studies, we present their
relations and interpersonal behavior, as hierometer theory and associated analyses in parallel. This makes for greater brevity and
sociometer theory respectively predict. Sixth, in testing the above, permits the replicability of findings to be scrutinized. Regarding
the program investigates self-regard, not only in its standard the unique elements of both studies, we present their associated
form as self-esteem, but also in a grandiose form as narcissism. analyses in sequence. This makes for a systematic analytic
Finally, the program proceeds to investigate whether and to what progression.
extent any empirically confirmed links to self-esteem continue to
obtain after statistically controlling for clinical variables known to Platform, Procedure, Precautions, and
overlap with self-esteem—in particular, depression and anxiety— Participants
which have themselves, in the context of evolutionary theory, All studies were run online. They were created and administered
been hypothesized to serve similar indicative and imperative using the designated university internet survey software.
functions (Price et al., 1994; Sloman, 2008). Participants were recruited via CrowdFlowerTM , a leading
It should be understood that this program of research crowdsourcing site, and took part for a nominal fee, on condition
represents the first step in a process of validating hierometer they were aged 18 years or above and were fluent in
theory in the comparative context of sociometer theory. It allows English. Before taking part, participants read some introductory
for the possibility that patterns could emerge that are at odds information and indicated their consent; afterward, they read a
with one or both theories, and enables tests of whether the debriefing statement. The studies were approved by the Research
data fit one theory better than another or both equally. Note Ethics Committee of the University of Southampton, UK.
that a complementary program of experimental research is also Crowdsourcing typically yields high-quality data, both rapidly
underway to test the hypothesized causal pathways between the and cheaply, from diverse participants (Buhrmester et al., 2011;

Germine et al., 2012). Nonetheless, it is prudent to exclude an important person”; inclusion: “. . .like me as a person”). Both
participants whose data are, for any of several reasons, suspect. scales featured a five-point response format (1 = strongly disagree,
Here, we excluded participants if: (a) their IP address appeared 5 = strongly agree).
more than once in the dataset (suggesting multiple completions);
(b) they completed the survey in less than half the median survey Psychological Self-Regard
time (suggesting an absence of reflection); (c) they completed all We assessed self-esteem with the 10-item Rosenberg Self-Esteem
items identically on any questionnaire featuring both forward- Scale (RSES; Rosenberg, 1965). We assessed narcissism with one
scored and reverse-scored items (suggesting mindless button- of two versions of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory: the
clicking); (d) their self-reported English-proficiency was poor or original 40-item (multifactorial) version (NPI-40: Raskin and
very poor; (e) they were younger than 18; and (f) they omitted to Hall, 1981; Studies 1 and 3) or the abbreviated (unifactorial) 16-
answer more than 5% of questionnaire items. item version (NPI-16; Ames et al., 2006; Study 2).3 Both the RSES
Table 1 shows sample demographics before and after and the NPI are leading measures of self-regard (Byrne, 1996;
screening, and the percentage excluded for each reason. As some Twenge et al., 2008). The RSES featured a five-point response
participants were excluded for multiple reasons, the sum of the format (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree), and the NPI
individual percentages excluded exceeds the total percentage. a six-point sliding scale, located between bipolar options (cf. Lee
Over 85% of the original participants were retained. Of these, et al., 2013). Sample items: “I feel that I have a number of good
about two-thirds were female, nine-10ths resident in the USA, qualities” (RSES); “I know that I am good because everybody
and the majority aged between 20 and 40.2 We report analyses keeps telling me so” versus “When people compliment me I
conducted on screened data, although analyses conducted on sometimes get embarrassed” (NPI).
unscreened data yielded inferentially equivalent results. Behavioral Strategy
We assessed assertiveness and affiliativeness using the 48-
Measures item Social Behavior Inventory (SBI; Moskowitz, 1994). The
Social Relations SBI consists of four 12-item subscales that respectively assess
We assessed status and inclusion, respectively, with structurally behaviors originally labeled dominant, submissive, agreeable, and
validated 8- and 9-item scales. These scales were originally quarrelsome (although we prefer the labels assertive, acquiescent,
developed by Huo et al. (2010) and enhanced by Mahadevan affiliative, and alienating, which emphasize interpersonal action
et al. (2015) with additional items that gave a broader conceptual over individual disposition, and avoid conceptual confounds
coverage and achieved a superior factor solution. Each item began [e.g., dominant implies a social rank]). The SBI featured a
with the stem “Most of the time I feel that people. . .” and ended six-point response format (1 = very unlike me, 6 = very like
with a different sentence completion (e.g., status: “. . .see me as me). Sample items: “I speak in a clear, firm voice” (dominant);
“I do not express disagreement” (submissive); “I compliment
2
Given that Gebauer et al. (2013) found a stronger correlation between self-esteem or praise other people” (agreeable); and “I criticize others”
and self-ascribed agentic traits (e.g., ambitious) for men, and between self-esteem
and self-ascribed communal traits (e.g., caring) for women, we also tested whether (quarrelsome). To derive an overall assertiveness index, we
gender moderated the suite of effects we report below. In general, equivalently subtracted participants’ mean score on the submissive subscale
significant and substantial effects were obtained for both genders. Given the from their mean score on the dominant subscale; to derive an
exposition is already lengthy, interested readers may contact the authors for further
overall affiliativeness index, we subtracted participants’ mean
details.
score on the quarrelsome subscale from their mean score on the
agreeable subscale.
TABLE 1 | Participant profile.
Depression
Variable Study 1 Study 2 We assessed depression in two ways: with the 21-item Beck
Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II; Beck et al., 1996) and with
Total sample size 712 789 the 20-item Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale
Duplicate IP addresses 2.7% 2.9%
(CES-D; Radloff, 1977). The BDI-II lists different symptoms,
Age <18 years 0.8% 1.0%
followed by topic-specific response options each time. Sample
Poor reported English 0.7% 1.4%
item: “Sadness”: (1 = I do not feel sad; 2 = I feel sad some of
proficiency
the time; 3 = I am sad all the time; 4 = I am so sad or unhappy
Overly rapid completion (< half 3.7% 5.8%
median completion time)
I can’t stand it). The CES-D lists different statements about
>5% blank 4.8% 4.2% 3
Given the multifactorial nature of the NPI-40 in Study 2, we also tested whether
Stereotyped responses 2.5% 3.7% the effects we report below obtained similarly or differently for the three key facets
Total excluded 12.1% 13.8% of narcissism isolated by Ackerman et al. (2011), namely, leadership/authority,
grandiosity/exhibitionism, and exploitativeness/entitlement (see also Lee et al.,
Screened sample size 626 680 2013). Although effects obtained for overall narcissism ultimately replicated across
Gender (male) 37.5% 39.1% all facets, exploitativeness/entitlement was less strongly related to agentic variables
(e.g., status, assertiveness), and more negatively related to communal variables
Mean age (in years) 34.5 32.3
(e.g., inclusion, affiliativeness). Again, given the length of the exposition, interested
SD age (in years) 12.9 12.8 readers are encouraged to contact the authors for further details. The unifactorial
U.S. residence 91.2% 86.5% nature of the NPI-16 obviated any such supplementary analysis in Study 1.

symptoms, followed by standard response options. Sample item: The upper panel of Table 3 lists all correlations between the
I was bothered by things that usually don’t bother me” (1 = Never two social relations variables (i.e., status and inclusion) and the
or hardly ever; 2 = Occasionally, now and then; 3 = A good deal of two self-regard variables (i.e., self-esteem and narcissism). These
the time; 4 = Mostly or all of the time). Given the high correlation appear in two forms: raw (first row) and partialed (second row).
between the BDI-II and the CES-D, r(624) = 0.85, p < 0.0001, we The partial correlations between any pair of variables (e.g., status
created a single composite measure, by standardizing scores on and narcissism) controlled for overlapping variance attributable
each and averaging the result. to the other pair (e.g., inclusion and self-esteem).
Several patterns deserve note. First, all raw coefficients were
Anxiety significantly positive. At first glance, then, the data are consistent
We assessed anxiety in two ways: with the 21-item Beck Anxiety with both forms of self-regard simply tracking both forms of
Inventory (BAI; Beck et al., 1988) and with the 20-item trait social relations. The higher participants’ status or inclusion, the
version of the State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI; Spielberger higher their self-esteem or narcissism was too. Second, the same
et al., 1983). Both measures cover a range of anxiety symptoms raw coefficients were, within each study, always higher for self-
(e.g., nervousness, light-headedness, trembling), are suitable esteem than for narcissism. This suggests that self-esteem is,
for clinical and non-clinical samples, and feature four-point overall, a more sensitive tracker of both status and inclusion.
response formats. The BAI lists the names of different anxiety Third, the raw coefficients were, within each study—and broken
symptoms, and has respondents indicate their severity. Sample down by self-esteem and narcissism individually—always at least
item: “Numbness or tingling” (1 = NOT AT ALL: It didn’t somewhat higher for status than for inclusion. This suggests that
bother me in the slightest; 2 = MILDLY: It didn’t bother me self-regard tracks status at least as sensitively as inclusion. Finally,
much; 3 = MODERATELY: It wasn’t pleasant at times; and the difference in raw coefficient size for correlations with status
4 = SEVERLY: It bothered me a lot). The STAI lists different and inclusion was greater for narcissism than it was for self-
statements about dispositional anxiety, and has respondents esteem. This suggests that, compared to self-esteem, narcissism is
indicate their level of agreement. All statements began with the a relatively more sensitive tracker of status than inclusion (while
sentence stem “In general....” Sample item: “. . .I worry over being an absolutely less sensitive tracker of both).
possible misfortunes” (1 = Not at all; 2 = A little; 3 = Somewhat; Nonetheless, status and inclusion correlated positively in
and 4 = Very much so). Again, given the high correlation between both studies—respective rs = 0.64 and 0.63, ps < 0.0001—as
the BAI and the STAI, r(678) = 0.64, p < 0.0001, we created a did self-esteem and narcissism—respective rs = 0.43 and 0.30,
single composite measure, by standardizing scores on each and ps < 0.0001. Accordingly, we examined the partialed coefficients
averaging the result. to gage the crucial links between the statistically “purified”
variables.
Although predictably lower in magnitude, all partial
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION coefficients nonetheless remained positive and significant—with
one key and consistent exception: narcissism now correlated
Descriptive Statistics negatively with inclusion, and significantly so in one out of
Table 2 summarizes the key aspects of all measures (means, two studies. This suggests that, if anything, narcissism tracks
standard deviations, internal consistencies, deviations from decrements in inclusion by increasing, not by decreasing
midpoint). In no case did any measure fall short of conventional (like self-esteem). This novel finding underscores the value
psychometric desiderata. Moreover, no variable evinced a of assessing self-regard in two different ways, and raises the
distribution that was atypical for everyday populations (e.g., possibility that any functional link between self-regard and
levels of self-esteem were significantly higher than the midpoint, inclusion may not be monolithic and unidirectional. The overall
and levels of narcissism were significantly lower than the picture is that, whereas self-esteem increases with better social
midpoint). relations generally, narcissism increases with one form (status)
but decreases with the other form (inclusion). Otherwise, the
Indicative Function: Social Relations and patterns obtained with partialed coefficients mirrored those
Psychological Self-Regard obtained with raw coefficients, suggesting identical conclusions.
Both hierometer theory and sociometer theory predict that levels In all, the patterns obtained were consistent with self-
of psychological self-regard will track levels of social relations regard serving the indicative functions specified by hierometer
(i.e., serve an indicative function). Hierometer theory specifically theory (i.e., for self-esteem and narcissism) and by sociometer
predicts that higher status will lead to higher self-regard, either theory (i.e., for self-esteem). Importantly, however, both forms
as self-esteem or narcissism. Sociometer theory, in its original of self-regard independently covaried with status at least
version, specifically predicts that higher inclusion will lead to as much as with inclusion; accordingly, self-regard, if it
higher self-regard in the form of self-esteem, though it makes tracks social relations, seems not only to track community
no prediction concerning narcissism (but see Leary and Downs, belongingness, but also and no less sensitively, achievement-
1995). However, to the extent that narcissism, unlike regular related standing. Moreover, the inverse link between narcissism
self-esteem, entails an agentic surfeit and a communal deficit, and inclusion complicates the empirical picture: it suggests
narcissism should disproportionately track status over inclusion, a new and unanticipated type of indicative function, not
whereas self-esteem should track both more equitably. easily accounted for in terms of the original version of

TABLE 2 | Means, standard deviations, and reliabilities of main variables.
Study 1 Study 2
Measures Scale M SD α M SD α
Status 1–5 3.21 ↑ 0.75 0.91 3.33 ↑ 0.75 0.91

Inclusion 1–5 3.68 ↑ 0.71 0.93 3.75 ↑ 0.67 0.92
Self-esteem 1–5 3.59 ↑ 0.84 0.92 3.61 ↑ 0.79 0.91
Narcissism 1–6 3.07 ↓ 0.71 0.92 3.03 ↓ 0.71 0.81
Assertiveness 1–6 3.80 ↑ 0.81 0.93 3.91 ↑ 0.76 0.92
Affiliativeness 1–6 4.48 ↑ 0.61 0.89 4.51 ↑ 0.59 0.88
Depression (BDI-II) 1–4 1.59 ↓ 0.54 0.94 – – –
Depression (CES-D) 1–4 1.88 ↓ 0.60 0.93 – – –
Anxiety (BAI) 1–4 – – – 1.81 ↓ 0.67 0.95
Anxiety (STAI) 1–4 – – – 2.15 ↓ 0.66 0.95
TABLE 3 | Raw and partial correlations between social relations, self-regard, and interpersonal behavior.
Study 1 Study 2
Self-esteem Narcissism Self-esteem Narcissism
Raw correlations
Status 0.63∗∗ 0.48∗∗ 0.61∗∗ 0.35∗∗
Inclusion 0.55∗∗ 0.31∗∗ 0.55∗∗ 0.17∗∗
Partial correlations
Status 0.35∗∗ 0.28∗∗ 0.35∗∗ 0.25∗∗
Inclusion 0.25∗∗ −0.05 0.29∗∗ −0.11∗
Assertiveness Affiliativeness Assertiveness Affiliativeness
Raw correlations
Self-esteem 0.48∗∗ 0.25∗∗ 0.39∗∗ 0.21∗∗
Narcissism 0.62∗∗ −0.17∗∗ 0.50∗∗ −0.34∗∗
Self-esteem 0.29∗∗ 0.36∗∗ 0.27∗∗ 0.32∗∗
Narcissism 0.50∗∗ −0.26∗∗ 0.40∗∗ −0.40∗∗
∗p < 0.01; ∗∗ p < 0.001.
sociometer theory. The findings also support the characterization for the sake of consistency, we applied the same partialing
of narcissism in terms of an agentic surfeit and communal procedure.
deficit. All correlation coefficients were significant. For both raw
and partialed correlations, the higher participants’ self-esteem,
the higher was their assertiveness and affiliativeness; but the
Imperative Function: Psychological higher their narcissism, the higher was their assertiveness and
Self-Regard and Behavioral Strategy the lower their affiliativeness. Thus, the data were consistent with
Both hierometer theory and sociometer theory predict that both forms of self-regard regulating both forms of behavioral
levels of psychological self-regard will regulate behavioral strategy, albeit in different ways. They suggest that whereas
strategies (i.e., serve an imperative function). The lower self-esteem regulates assertiveness and affiliativeness similarly
panel of Table 3 lists, for both studies, the correlations (by making each rise as it rises), narcissism regulates them
between the two self-regard variables (i.e., self-esteem and differently (by making assertiveness rise, but affiliativeness fall, as
narcissism) and the two behavioral strategy variables (i.e., it rises).
assertiveness and affiliativeness). Again, these appear in two As regards other patterns, the data did not strongly
forms: raw (third row) and partialed (fourth row). The partial support either form of self-regard being a more potent
correlations between any pair of variables (e.g., narcissism and regulator of behavioral strategies overall, or either form
assertiveness) controlled for overlapping variance attributable of behavioral strategy being more potently regulated by
to the other pair (e.g., self-esteem and affiliativeness). Here, self-regard overall. The narcissism-assertiveness coefficients
assertiveness and affiliativeness emerged as largely orthogonal, were always (absolutely) the highest; the others were closer
respective rs = −0.05 and −0.07, ps > 0.05. Nonetheless, in magnitude to one another, especially in their partialed

form. Among the partialed coefficients, a cross-over trend to assess—does seem to promote hostility (DeWall and Richman,
could be discerned, such that self-esteem covaried (slightly) 2011).
more strongly with affiliativeness than assertiveness, whereas However, given that narcissism covaried negatively with
narcissism covaried (much) more strongly with assertiveness affiliativeness, it fitted the bill, sociometer-wise, where self-esteem
than affiliativeness. As before, narcissism seemed to have did not. In particular, as narcissism decreased, participants
been characterized by agentic surfeit and a communal adopted a more affiliative behavioral strategy. This suggests that
deficit. narcissism might operate in the imperative manner prescribed
How then do these findings bear on the validity of the by the original version of sociometer theory. However, as
hierometer theory and sociometer theory? As regards hierometer noted above, narcissism does not operate in the prescribed
theory, all the findings are fully consistent with it. As both indicative manner: it also covaried negatively with social
forms of self-regard increased, assertiveness increased; and as inclusion. Hence, narcissism cannot entirely operate as the
both forms of self-regard decreased, assertiveness decreased. original version of sociometer theory specifies self-esteem
These findings suggest a form of adaptive consolidation, with should.
higher or lower levels of self-regard inducing individuals to It might be objected that sociometer theory only properly
adopt, respectively, a more assertive or acquiescent behavioral applies to state self-esteem, not to trait self-esteem; and indeed,
strategy, in keeping with the competitive capacities liable to the bulk of research cited in support of sociometer references
be conferred by their higher or lower status, and tracked state self-esteem (e.g., Leary, 2005). However, associations with
by self-regard. In contrast, dominance theory (Barkow, trait self-esteem have previously been marshaled in support of
1975, 1980) arguably implies the reverse: lower levels of sociometer in respect of its prescribed indicative functions (e.g.,
self-regard should have prompted adaptive compensation, Leary et al., 1995, 2001; Anthony et al., 2007a; Denissen et al.,
inducing individuals to adopt a more assertive behavioral 2008). This makes it rhetorically difficult to object to their bearing
strategy to augment their diminished status. Accordingly, on its prescribed imperative functions also. A case would have
our findings support hierometer theory over dominance to be made for why—if sociometer theory is correct about social
theory. inclusion being so essential for survival— individuals who are
As regards the original version of sociometer theory, the same chronically low in self-esteem, due to chronic social exclusion,
logic of adaptive compensation versus adaptive consolidation should not strive for re-inclusion by adopting a chronically
applies, but concerning inclusion and affiliativeness rather affiliative behavioral strategy.
than status and assertiveness. Individuals whose self-esteem In all, the patterns obtained were consistent with self-regard
is lower, due to their lower levels of inclusion, should serving the imperative functions specified by hierometer theory
be more inclined to adopt affiliative behavioral strategies (for self-esteem and narcissism) but not those specified by
designed to rectify their lower levels of inclusion, whereas sociometer theory (for self-esteem).
those whose self-esteem is higher, due to their higher levels
of inclusion, can afford to relax the imperative to affiliate.
However, our findings pointed toward the opposite conclusion: Mediational Analyses I: Self-Esteem and
levels of self-esteem covaried positively, not negatively, with Narcissism
affiliativeness. This is consistent with a consolidatory rather By considering above the separate links between (a)
than a compensatory dynamic. Social exclusion seems to social relations and psychological self-regard, and (b)
have an alienating impact: it reduces affiliativeness, which psychological self-regard and behavioral strategy, we tested,
is arguably less adaptive in the absence of benevolent and in each case, whether the data were either consistent or
beneficent reciprocators. Such a dynamic would fit with some inconsistent with self-regard serving the different indicative
empirical findings (e.g., Twenge et al., 2007), although not with and imperative functions specified by hierometer theory
others (e.g., Maner et al., 2007). Persistent failure to achieve and (the original version) of sociometer theory. However,
inclusion—which our chronically oriented measures were liable both theories additionally specify that the indicative and
TABLE 4 | Raw and partial correlation between social relations and interpersonal behavior.
Study 1 Study 2
Assertiveness Affiliativeness Assertiveness Affiliativeness
Raw correlations
Status 0.42∗∗ 0.22∗∗ 0.40∗∗ 0.13∗∗
Inclusion 0.35∗∗ 0.35∗∗ 0.31∗∗ 0.31∗∗
Status 0.28∗∗ 0.06 0.26∗∗ −0.04
Inclusion 0.16∗∗ 0.30∗∗ 0.14∗∗ 0.32∗∗
∗∗ p < 0.001.

imperative functions are coordinated: social relations should mediation was more marked for the agentic variables invoked
affect self-regard, which should in turn affect behavioral by hierometer theory than for the communal variables invoked
strategy. If so, then there should be a link between social by (the original version of) sociometer theory. In particular,
relations and behavioral strategy, which is mediated by the path from self-esteem to affiliative behavior was notably
self-regard. weak.
Table 4 lists, for both studies, all correlations between the Across both studies, the findings from the second set of
two social relations variables (i.e., status and inclusion) and models (Figure 3) were also highly consistent. Overall, self-
the two behavioral strategy variables (i.e., assertiveness and regard—represented by the combination of self-esteem and
affiliativeness). These appear in two forms: raw (top row) and narcissism—again significantly and substantially mediated the
doubly partialed (bottom row). link between social relations and behavioral strategy. However,
The patterns—especially the raw coefficients—show that, the pattern of mediation differed markedly for the hierometer-
generally speaking, higher status and inclusion covaried relevant agentic variables and the sociometer-relevant communal
positively with assertiveness and affiliativeness. Thus, better variables. This time, the direct path between status and
social relations generally prompted higher levels of both behavior assertiveness dropped to zero in one case, showing that the
strategies. Beyond this—as the partialed coefficients best attest— self-regard “combo” completely mediated the link between
status covaried relatively more strongly with assertiveness, and status and assertiveness. (The incomplete mediation observed
inclusion relatively more strongly with affiliativeness. in Study 2 may have been due to its featuring, not the
To test whether self-regard mediated these links, we full 40-item version of the NPI, but rather the abbreviated
constructed, for each study, a structural equation model 16-item version, which sacrificed conceptual coverage for
(Kline, 2005). In both sets, we estimated all directional administrative brevity.) Thus, the addition of narcissism to
paths using bias-corrected bootstraps on standardized scores the models, which lowered direct effects from around 0.20
(Efron, 1987). As all models were fully saturated, and had to 0, substantially augmented the mediation of the status-
zero degrees of freedom, no goodness of fit indices applied assertiveness link—again underscoring the value of assessing
(Kline, 2005, p. 133). In the first set of models (Figure 2), self-regard in two different ways. In contrast, the addition of
we entered status and inclusion as a pair of exogenous narcissism to the model hardly affected the mediation of the
predictor variables, self-esteem as an endogenous mediator inclusion-affiliativeness link: as before, direct effects of around
variable, and assertiveness and affiliativeness as a pair of 0.30 emerged. This was primarily because the paths from
endogenous outcome variables. We permitted status and inclusion to narcissism were near-zero, despite the emergence
inclusion to covary, and we did the same for assertiveness of strong negative paths between narcissism and affiliativeness,
and affiliativeness. In the second set of models (Figure 3), we and the positive paths from self-esteem to affiliativeness rising
added narcissism as a second endogenous mediator variable, slightly.
and additionally permitted self-esteem and narcissism to This first set of mediational findings fully supports hierometer
covary.4 , 5 theory. The data are consistent with self-regard—especially when
Across both studies, the findings from the first set of models jointly operationalized as self-esteem and narcissism—acting as
(Figure 2) were remarkably consistent. Overall, self-esteem a psychological mediator that bridges the gap between status
significantly and substantially mediated the link between social and assertiveness. In particular, they are consistent with self-
relations and behavioral strategy. Specifically, the indirect paths regard tracking status (by rising or falling in tandem with it) and
between status and assertiveness via self-esteem always attained regulating assertiveness (by making it rise or fall in tandem) to
significance, although the direct paths remained significant too. help ensure that individuals navigate adaptively status hierarchies
Likewise, the indirect paths between inclusion and affiliativeness by judiciously engaging in zero-sum contests (i.e., as their status
via self-esteem always attained significance, although the direct dictates).
paths remained significant too. Furthermore, all paths, direct Second, the mediational findings only offer at best partial
and indirect, were positive in sign, suggesting a consolidatory support for the original version of sociometer theory. In the
dynamic, with higher status prompting greater assertiveness aggregate, the data arguably do not support it. Certainly, our
by raising self-esteem, and higher inclusion prompting greater data suggest that self-esteem tracks inclusion, by rising (or
affiliativeness in like manner. Finally, the magnitude of the falling) in tandem with it. However, they also suggest that, at
the same time, self-esteem makes affiliativeness rise (or fall) in
4
Note that, in principle, many other mediational models could have been tandem with it too. Sociometer theory would arguably predict the
considered, some more piecemeal (e.g., involving only hierometer-relevant opposite, namely, that lower self-esteem should prompt greater
variables), and others more comprehensive (e.g., involving ancillary variables such affiliativeness, to help restore the fractured bonds of community
as depression and anxiety). However, space limitations regrettably forbade us from
considering all of them. We took the defensible view that self-esteem, the canonical
belongingness, regarded as so fundamental to survival. Yet
form of self-regard invoked by both hierometer theory and sociometer theory, narcissism did vary inversely with affiliativeness, consistent
should be tested as the primary mediator of links between social relations and with one variant form of self-regard regulating behavior in
behavioral strategy, and that narcissism, a variant form of self-regard, should be the required direction. At the same time, narcissism hardly
tested as an ancillary mediator.
5 covaried with inclusion, thereby ruling it out as a mediator
In the graphical representations of each model, two direct effects and error-
covariances are not displayed for ease of presentation; however, these were to bridge the sociometer-specified gap between inclusion and
included in the statistical models for purposes of estimation. affiliativeness.

FIGURE 1 | A side-by-side illustration of the hypothesized dynamics of hierometer theory and (the original version of) sociometer theory.
Mediational Analyses II: Self-Esteem, Accordingly, to determine whether self-esteem uniquely

Depression, and Anxiety mediated the link between social relations and behavioral
strategy—that is, to test whether the predictions of hierometer
Self-esteem is known to covary inversely with most negative
theory or sociometer theory held above and beyond the
emotions, in particular, with anxiety and depression (Baumeister
predictions of alternative theories—we ran a further pair of
et al., 2003; Sedikides et al., 2004). Furthermore, some theories
models parallel to the second set above, but replacing narcissism
(Price et al., 1994; Sloman, 2008) state that depression and
either with depression (assessed in Study 1: Figure 4, top) or
anxiety evolved to serve indicative and imperative functions
anxiety (assessed in Study 2: Figure 4, middle). To facilitate inter-
similar to those hypothesized by sociometer and hierometer
model comparison, we also inverted the depression and anxiety
theory to be served by self-esteem. In particular, depression
indices, such that higher scores represented lower depression (i.e.,
per se has been hypothesized to activate a harm-minimizing
cheerfulness) and lower anxiety (i.e., calmness).
“yielding subroutine” (Price and Sloman, 1987) that facilitates
the emergence of stable “pecking orders” across species— Compared to lone mediation by self-esteem (Figure 2), the
rather like hierometer theory proposing that low-esteem curtails impact of adding either cheerfulness or calmness to the models,
assertiveness to optimize competitive performance within as potential ancillary mediators, differed for the hierometer-
social hierarchies. In addition, social anxiety per se has been relevant agentic variables and the sociometer-relevant communal
hypothesized to keep people appropriately mindful of what variables. The path coefficients for status and assertiveness,
is socially acceptable lest they fall prey to public sanction— direct and indirect, hardly changed. The same was true of the
similar to sociometer theory proposing that low self-esteem path between inclusion and self-esteem. However, the paths
signals to people their levels of social inclusion or relational between self-esteem and affiliativeness changed substantially:
value are running dangerously low (Gilbert, 2001). Although they dropped to non-significance with the addition of either
self-esteem might conceivably operate in concert with anxiety cheerfulness or calmness to the model, ruling out self-esteem
and depression, both hierometer and sociometer theory would be serving any unique imperative function. Rather, the data in Study
strongly validated if findings emerged that were consistent with 1 were consistent with cheerfulness independently exhibiting
self-esteem playing a mediational role independently of anxiety a consolidatory dynamic—with higher inclusion prompting
or depression. greater affiliativeness by increasing cheerfulness. Such indicative

FIGURE 2 | The mediating effect of self-esteem. † p < 0.10; ∗ p < 0.05; ∗∗ p < 0.01; ∗∗∗ p < 0.001.
and imperative functions bear some similarity to those specified shown by self-esteem, in line with evolutionary accounts of their
by evolutionary theories of clinical disorders (Price et al., 1994). adaptive function.
In addition, a positive and significant path emerged between
status and cheerfulness, although not between cheerfulness and
assertive behavior—only partly in keeping with such theories. GENERAL DISCUSSION
In a similar vein, the path coefficients in Study 2 suggested—
again with self-esteem entered simultaneously in the model—that In this article, we put forward, and empirically tested, a novel
calmness exhibited a consolidatory dynamic like cheerfulness: theory of the evolutionary function of self-regard: hierometer
higher inclusion prompted greater affiliativeness by increasing theory. This theory proposes that self-regard operates as part of
calmness. However, and again mimicking the pattern for a system that enables individuals to navigate status hierarchies
cheerfulness, a positive and significant path emerged between adaptively. In doing so, individuals must make judicious
status and calmness, although not between calmness and assertive decisions about whether or not to enter risky zero-sum contests
behavior. that may not only be beneficially won but also harmfully lost. One
In sum, even when cheerfulness and calmness were included factor liable to predict the outcome of such contests is prior social
in the models as co-mediators, self-esteem continued to show, in status. Accordingly, hierometer theory proposes that higher
near-unchanged form, the patterns of association with status and (lower) prior social status promotes a behavioral strategy of
assertiveness predicted by hierometer theory. However, although augmented (diminished) assertiveness, with self-regard acting as
self-esteem also continued to show associations suggestive of the intrapsychic bridge—in particular, tracking social status in the
tracking inclusion, any associations suggestive of behavioral first instance and then regulating behavioral strategy in terms of
regulation disappeared. Yet, both cheerfulness (i.e., the inverse it. Note that the overall dynamic involved is consolidatory rather
of depression) and calmness (i.e., the inverse of anxiety) showed than compensatory: higher rather than lower status is proposed to
the pattern consistent with the consolidatory dynamic previously lead to increased assertiveness. In this regard, hierometer theory

FIGURE 3 | The mediating effects of self-esteem and narcissism. † p < 0.10; ∗ p < 0.05; ∗∗ p < 0.01; ∗∗∗ p < 0.001.
differs from dominance theory, which arguably implies that it is generally; that is, how much one perceives that others value the
losses in social status that prompt attempts to regain it (Barkow, relationships that one has with them (Leary, 2005).
1980). The explicit formulation of hierometer theory brings out a
Hierometer theory also supplements and complements number of unresolved issues with sociometer theory. The most
sociometer theory, one leading theory of self-regard’s important of these has to do with the ambiguity over what “social
evolutionary function. In its original version, sociometer theory acceptance” means, and by extension, over what “relational value”
proposes that self-regard—in particular, self-esteem—operates means.
as part of a system that enables people to maintain a minimal In particular, individuals can become valued members of
level of social acceptance, considered essential to survival. It society in one of two ways: (a) by being insiders rather than
proposes that self-esteem tracks levels of social acceptance, such outsiders—that is, by being liked, accepted, and included (Leary
that, if social rejection looms, a drop in self-esteem serves as an et al., 1995); or (b) by being winners rather than losers— that
intrapsychic warning signal, motivating individuals to regain is, by being respected, admired, and deemed important (Magee
social acceptance by engaging in pro-social (i.e., affiliative) and Galinsky, 2008). Otherwise put, individuals can achieve
behavior. Note that the dynamic involved is compensatory: social inclusion or social status—two conceptually distinct, if
Lower rather than higher acceptance is proposed to lead to empirically correlated, constructs. The question then arises as to
increased affiliativeness. A revised version of sociometer theory whether and what extent self-regard tracks one versus the other—
instead proposes that self-esteem tracks relational value more the former being more communal in character, and the latter

FIGURE 4 | The mediating effects of self-esteem and cheerfulness/calmness. † p < 0.10; ∗ p < 0.05; ∗∗ p < 0.01; ∗∗∗ p < 0.001.
being more agentic (Bakan, 1966; Huo et al., 2010). Whereas possible to test, via correlational and mediational means, and
hierometer theory proposes that self-regard tracks status, the controlling for overlapping variance between parallel variables,
original version of sociometer theory proposes that self-regard whether and to what extent self-regard plays the indicative
(self-esteem) tracks inclusion, whereas the revised version leaves and imperative functions specified by both theories. It also
the issue open (i.e., tracks any form of relational value). Moreover, becomes possible to test whether the dynamic involved is
both hierometer theory and sociometer theory propose, not only either compensatory (such that lower self-regard, evoked
that self-regard tracks social relations, but also that it regulates by lesser status or inclusion, prompts greater assertiveness
behavior. Specifically, whereas hierometer theory proposes that or affiliativeness) or consolidatory (such that higher self-
self-regard regulates assertive behavior, the original version regard, evoked by greater status or inclusion, prompts greater
of sociometer theory proposes that it (self-esteem) regulates assertiveness or affiliativeness). In addition, it is possible to
affiliative behavior, with the revised version again leaving the issue test all the above with respect to two types of self-regard
open (i.e., regulates any behavior relevant to relational value). (self-esteem and narcissism), and also controlling for potential
Accordingly, by (a) taking the agentic constructs specified by confounding variables of a clinical sort (depression and anxiety).
hierometer theory, and the communal constructs specified by the In the research reported in this article, we actualized all these
original version of sociometer theory, and by (b) operationalizing possibilities.
them systematically and simultaneously at appropriate levels At every turn, the predictions of hierometer theory were
of analysis (i.e., social, psychological, behavioral), it becomes verified. In both studies, we found that self-regard, whether

in the form of self-esteem or narcissism, correlated positively related to agency and “getting-ahead”—uniquely predicted self-
with both status and assertiveness—consistent with self-regard esteem, whereas the trait of agreeableness—the one most related
tracking the former and regulating the latter. In addition, to communion and “getting along”—did not. In addition, and
self-regard statistically mediated the link between status and as expected, narcissism emerged as relatively more agency-based
assertiveness—partially for self-esteem alone, but wholly for self- than communion-based (Sedikides et al., 2002; cf. Campbell and
esteem and narcissism combined, thereby highlighting the value Foster, 2007), in that it entailed a deficit in communion for some
of considering both forms of self-regard jointly, rather than self- links (e.g., to affiliativeness) and a surfeit in agency for others (e.g.,
esteem alone. The pattern of observed statistical associations to assertiveness). Nonetheless, some links (e.g., to status) were
suggested that higher (lower) status increases (decreases) self- equally strong for self-esteem and narcissism.
regard which in turn augments (diminishes) assertiveness. This We believe that the foregoing discussion illustrates how
suggests a consolidatory dynamic: those who have status adopt a our correlational and mediational findings—by being either
riskier behavioral strategy, and those who lack it adopt a safer one, in keeping, or at odds, with different theoretically derived
with self-regard acting as the intrapsychic bridge. Furthermore, predictions—serve either to provide support for, or to call
even when controlling for depression and anxiety—clinical into question, the theories that yield those predictions, thereby
variables also hypothesized to serve an evolutionary role in moving forward the investigation of the function of self-regard.
moderating levels of assertiveness—the correlations consistent That is, even if correlation and mediation do not prove causation,
with the hypothesized indicative and imperative functions causal theories can nonetheless be tested by whether or not
remained robust, thereby raising the likelihood that self-regard observed patterns of correlation and mediation are consistent
indeed acts as the crucial mediator. with their predictions. In other words, although consistent
Second, the predictions of the original version of sociometer patterns do not decisively establish a theory, inconsistent patterns
theory were sometimes verified and sometimes falsified, such do have the power to undermine it. As one of the progenitors
that, on the whole, the theory was not supported (subject of sociometer theory has emphasized “[absent] measurement
to some caveats below). In particular, self-esteem correlated error or methodological shortcomings . . . null correlations falsify
positively with both inclusion and affiliativeness—consistent with causal hypotheses (Baumeister et al., 2003, p. 9).” For example,
it tracking the former and regulating the latter. Moreover, when in the current research, a failure to find a unique positive
considered in isolation, self-esteem also statistically mediated the correlation between status and self-esteem, after controlling for
link between the two. However, the pattern observed suggested both inclusion and narcissism, would have called hierometer
that higher (lower) inclusion increases (decreases) self-esteem theory into question, and unequivocally supported the original
so as to augment (diminish) affiliativeness. This would imply version of sociometer theory, which emphasizes inclusion.
an indicative function in keeping with the original version of Especially as a first step toward validating a promising theory,
sociometer theory, but an imperative function at odds with such correlational and mediational patterns are, at the very least,
it (i.e., decreased self-esteem should augment affiliativeness). informative. In any case, complementary experimental research
Furthermore, when competing clinical variables (i.e., depression is now underway that has begun to establish the causal links
and anxiety) were entered into models alongside self-esteem, all specified by hierometer theory (Mahadevan et al., 2015).
links to affiliativeness approached zero, thereby casting doubt on In defense of sociometer theory, however, at least two
whether self-esteem is an independent mediator of any dynamic, caveats merit consideration. First, we focused on long-standing
consolidatory or compensatory. Finally, although narcissism did conditions, at a social, psychological, or behavioral level.
correlate negatively with affiliativeness, it barely correlated with Accordingly, we assessed all our variables in either chronic or
inclusion; hence, as an alternative index of self-regard, narcissism trait form. Had we instead focused on changing conditions,
cannot play the role required by self-regard in the original and so assessed our variables in either acute or state form,
version of sociometer theory either. Note that our findings more evidence of a compensatory dynamic might have come to
here are generally in keeping with the accumulated empirical light. Specifically, in line with the original version of sociometer
record on sociometer theory to date, which reliably supports theory, acute drops in state self-esteem might have momentarily
the hypothesized indicative function for self-esteem (Leary et al., augmented affiliativeness (Maner et al., 2007). Similarly, in
1995; Denissen et al., 2008), but only equivocally supports its line with dominance theory, acute drops in self-regard might
hypothesized imperative function (Maner et al., 2007; Twenge have momentarily augmented assertiveness (Barkow, 1980).
et al., 2007). Ultimately, the timespan over which relevant variables are
That our findings for self-esteem were consistent with measured may be a critical moderator of, and a limiting
hierometer theory, but not or not entirely with the original condition on, the applicability of hierometer and sociometer
version of sociometer theory, further suggests that, although theory. Nonetheless, given that links between constructs assessed
self-esteem is both agency-based and communion-based, it at a chronic and trait level have been previously adduced as
is relatively more agency-based than communion-based—a evidence for sociometer theory (Leary et al., 1995, 2001; Anthony
conclusion also reached independently by other researchers et al., 2007a; Denissen et al., 2008), it is legitimate that they be
(Wojciszke et al., 2011). Indeed, in this connection, Gebauer adduced as evidence for hierometer theory, especially given its
et al. (2015) recently found, in two very large cross-cultural novelty. To count such chronic links as evidence for sociometer
studies, featuring self-reports and informant reports respectively, theory, but not for hierometer theory, would be tantamount to
that the Big Five personality trait of extraversion—the one most discrimination.

Second, our findings are arguably consistent with the revised independently shape how individuals feel about themselves, and
version of sociometer theory, which is equivocal about the type in turn, how they behave. But the pattern of data we obtained
of relational value that self-esteem tracks, and by extension, is most consistent with the outcome of being a winner or loser
the type of social acceptance that goes hand in hand with it. ultimately regulating how assertively or acquiescently individuals
Indeed, hierometer theory, and the original version of sociometer behave. In particular, prompted by their levels self-regard—
theory, might each be considered complementary subsets of the people on an already winning trajectory seem motivated to
revised version of sociometer theory, if the latter is construed seek further wins, whereas those on a losing trajectory seem
very broadly as a theory which states that types of social relations motivated to avoid further losses. Such a dynamic system, which
(status, inclusion), which constitute different types of relational serves to consolidate individuals’ existing statuses, arguably helps
value, regulate types of behavioral strategies (assertiveness, them prudently navigate social hierarchies, by optimizing their
affiliativeness) via types of self-regard (self-esteem, narcissism). judicious participation in risky zero-sum contests.
If so, then our confirmatory findings for hierometer theory, and
mixed findings for the original version of sociometer theory,
would still suggest that the revised version of sociometer theory AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
holds truer for agentic variables than for communal ones.
The theory was developed by NM and AG, with input
from CS and WDW-A. NM and AG developed the studies
CONCLUSION and NM collected the data. Data were analysed by NM
(primary) and AG (secondary). NM and AG co-wrote the
It matters whether, in the social world, one is either a winner manuscript which was then further refined by CS, WDW-A, NM,
or a loser, or an insider or outsider. Both outcomes seem to and AG.
REFERENCES Baumeister, R. F., and Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: desire for
interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychol. Bull.
Ackerman, R. A., Witt, E. A., Donnellan, M. B., Trzesniewski, K. H., Robins, 117, 497–529. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
R. W., and Kashy, D. A. (2011). What does the narcissistic personality Beck, A. T., Epstein, N., Brown, G., and Steer, R. A. (1988). An inventory for
inventory really measure? Assessment 18, 67–87. doi: 10.1177/10731911103 measuring clinical anxiety: psychometric properties. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol.
82845 56, 893–897. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.56.6.893
Ames, D., Rose, P., and Anderson, C. (2006). The NPI-16 as a short Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., and Brown, G. K. (1996). Manual for Beck Depression
measure of narcissism. J. Res. Pers. 40, 440–449. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2005. Inventory-II. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
03.002 Bernstein, M. J., Claypool, H. M., Young, S. G., Tuscherer, T., Sacco, D. F.,
Anderson, C., Hildreth, J. A. D., and Howland, L. (2015). Is the desire for status a and Brown, C. M. (2013). Never let them see you cry: self-presentation as a
fundamental human motive? A review of the empirical literature. Psychol. Bull. moderator of the relationship between exclusion and self-esteem. Pers. Soc.
141, 574–601. doi: 10.1037/a0038781 Psychol. Bull. 39, 1293–1305. doi: 10.1177/0146167213495281
Anderson, C., John, O. P., Keltner, D., and Kring, A. L. (2001). Who attains social Betzig, L. (1986). Despotism and Differential Reproduction. New York NY: Aldine.
status? Effects of personality traits and physical attractiveness in social groups. Blackhart, G. C., Nelson, B. C., Knowles, M. L., and Baumeister, R. F. (2009).
J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 81, 116–132. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.116 Rejection elicits emotional reactions but neither causes immediate distress nor
Anderson, C., Srivastava, S., Beer, J. S., Spataro, S. E., and Chatman, J. A. (2006). lowers self-esteem: a meta-analytic review of 192 studies on social exclusion.
Knowing your place: self-perceptions of status in face-to-face groups. J. Pers. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 13, 269–309. doi: 10.1177/1088868309346065
Soc. Psychol. 91, 1094–1110. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.91.6.1094 Bourgeois, K. S., and Leary, M. R. (2001). Coping with rejection: derogating
Anthony, D. B., Holmes, J. G., and Wood, J. V. (2007a). Social acceptance and self- those who choose us last. Motiv. Emot. 25, 101–111. doi: 10.1023/A:1010661
esteem: tuning the sociometer to interpersonal value. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 92, 825137
1024–1039. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1024 Brunell, A. B., and Campbell, W. K. (2011). “Narcissism and romantic
Anthony, D. B., Wood, J. V., and Holmes, J. G. (2007b). Testing sociometer theory: relationships,” in Handbook of Narcissism and Narcissistic Personality Disorder,
self-esteem and the importance of acceptance for social decision-making. J. Exp. eds W. K. Campbell and J. D. Miller (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley), 344–350.
Soc. Psychol. 43, 425–432. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2006.03.002 Buckley, K. E., Winkel, R. E., and Leary, M. R. (2004). Reactions to acceptance
Back, M. D., Krause, S., Hirschmüller, S., Stopfer, J. M., Egloff, B., and and rejection: effects of level and sequence of relational evaluation. J. Exp. Soc.
Schmukle, S. C. (2009). Unraveling the three faces of self-esteem: a new Psychol. 40, 14–28. doi: 10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00064-7
information-processing sociometer perspective. J. Res. Pers. 43, 933–937. doi: Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., and Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk
10.1016/j.jrp.2009.04.002 a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 6, 3–5.
Bakan, D. (1966). The Duality of Human Existence: Isolation and Communion in doi: 10.1177/1745691610393980
Western Man. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Byrne, B. M. (1996). Measuring Self-Concept Across the Life Span: Methodological
Barkow, J. H. (1975). “Prestige and culture: a biosocial interpretation,” in Current Issues and Selected Instrumentation. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Anthropology, Vol. 16, ed. M. Aldenderfer (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Association.
Press), 553–572. Campbell, W. K. (1999). Narcissism and romantic attraction. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
Barkow, J. H. (1980). “Prestige and self-esteem: a biosocial interpretation,” in 77, 1254–1270. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1254
Dominance Relations: An Ethological View of Human Conflict and Social Campbell, W. K., and Foster, J. D. (2007). “The narcissistic self: background,
Interaction, eds D. R. Omark, F. F. Strayer, and D. G. Freedman (New York, an extended agency model, and ongoing controversies,” in Frontiers in Social
NY: Garland SMTP Press), 319–332. Psychology: The Self, eds C. Sedikides and S. Spencer (Philadelphia, PA:
Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., and Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does Psychology Press), 115–138.
high self-esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, Campbell, W. K., and Miller, J. D. (2011). The Handbook of Narcissism and
or healthier lifestyles? Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 4, 1–44. doi: 10.1111/1529- Narcissistic Personality Disorder: Theoretical Approaches, Empirical findings,
1006.01431 and Treatments. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Campbell, W. K., Rudich, E., and Sedikides, C. (2002). Narcissism, self-esteem, and Huo, Y. J., Binning, K. R., and Molina, L. E. (2010). Testing an integrative model of
the positivity of self-views: two portraits of self-love. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 28, respect: implications for social engagement and well-being. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
358–368. doi: 10.1177/0146167202286007 Bull. 36, 200–212. doi: 10.1177/0146167209356787
Crocker, J., Karpinski, A., Quinn, D. M., and Chase, S. K. (2003). When grades Josephs, R. A., Larrick, R. P., Steele, C. M., and Nisbett, R. E. (1992). Protecting the
determine self-worth: consequences of contingent self-worth for male and self from the negative consequences of risky decisions. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 62,
female engineering and psychology majors. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 85, 507–516. 26–37. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.62.1.26
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.507 Kernis, M. H. (2003). Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem. Psychol.
Crocker, J., Sommers, S. R., and Luhtanen, R. K. (2002). Hopes dashed and dreams Inquiry 14, 1–26. doi: 10.1207/S15327965PLI1401_01
fulfilled: contingencies of self-worth and graduate school admissions. Pers. Soc. Kirkpatrick, L. A., and Ellis, B. J. (2001). “An evolutionary-psychological approach
Psychol. Bull. 28, 1275–1286. doi: 10.1177/01461672022812012 to self-esteem: multiple domains and multiple functions,” in The Blackwell
Cuddy, A. J., Fiske, S. T., and Glick, P. (2008). Warmth and competence as Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 2, eds G. Fletcher and M. Clark (Oxford:
universal dimensions of social perception: the stereotype content model and Blackwell), 411–436.
the BIAS map. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 40, 61–149. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(07) Klein, P. G. (2010). The Capitalist and the Entrepreneur: Essays on Organizations
00002-0 and Markets. Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modelling, 2nd
needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol. Inquiry 11, 227–268. doi: Edn. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01 Koch, E. J., and Shepperd, J. A. (2008). Testing competence and
Denissen, J. J. A., Penke, L., Schmitt, D. P., and van Aken, M. A. G. (2008). Self- acceptance explanations of self-esteem. Self Identity 7, 54–74. doi:
esteem reactions to social interactions: evidence for sociometer mechanisms 10.1080/15298860601005826
across days, people, and nations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 95, 181–196. doi: Landau, M. J., and Greenberg, J. (2006). Play it safe or go for the gold? A
10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.181 terror management perspective on self-enhancement and protection motives
DeWall, C. N., and Richman, S. B. (2011). Social exclusion and the desire in risky decision making. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 32, 1633–1645. doi:
to reconnect. Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass 5, 919–932. doi: 10.1111/j.1751- 10.1177/0146167206292017
9004.2011.00383.x Leary, M. R. (1999). Making sense of self-esteem. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 8, 32–35.
Efron, B. (1987). Better bootstrap confidence intervals. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 82, doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.00008
171–200. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1987.10478410 Leary, M. R. (2004). “The sociometer, self-esteem, and the regulation of
Fiske, S. T. (2010). “Interpersonal stratification: status, power, and subordination,” interpersonal behavior,” in Handbook of Self-Regulation, eds R. F. Baumeister
in Handbook of Social Psychology, 5th Edn, eds S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, and G. and K. D. Vohs (New York, NY: Guilford).
Lindzey (New York, NY: Wiley), 941–982. Leary, M. R. (2005). Sociometer theory and the pursuit of relational value:
Foa, U. G. (1961). Convergences in the analysis of the structure of interpersonal getting to the root of self-esteem. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 16, 75–111. doi:
behavior. Psychol. Rev. 68, 341–353. doi: 10.1037/h0039638 10.1080/10463280540000007
Frank, R. H. (1985). Choosing the Right Pond: Human Behavior and the Quest for Leary, M. R., and Baumeister, R. F. (2000). “The nature and function of self-esteem:
Status. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. sociometer theory,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 32, ed.
Gebauer, J. E., Sedikides, C., Wagner, J., Bleidorn, W., Rentfrow, P. J., Potter, J., M. P. Zanna (San Diego: Academic Press), 1–62.
et al. (2015). Cultural norm fulfillment, interpersonal belonging, or getting- Leary, M. R., Cottrell, C. A., and Phillips, M. (2001). Deconfounding the effects
ahead? A large-scale cross-cultural test of three perspectives on the function of dominance and social acceptance on self-esteem. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 81,
of self-esteem. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 109, 526–548. doi: 10.1037/pspp00 898–909. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.81.5.898
00052 Leary, M. R., and Downs, D. L. (1995). “Interpersonal functions of the self-
Gebauer, J. E., Wagner, J., Sedikides, C., and Neberich, W. (2013). The esteem motive: the self-esteem system as a sociometer,” in Efficacy, Agency, and
relation between agency-communion and self-esteem is moderated by Self-Esteem, ed. M. H. Kernis (New York, NY: Plenum), 123–144.
culture, religiosity, age, and sex: evidence for the self-centrality breeds self- Leary, M. R., Haupt, A., Strausser, K., and Chokel, J. (1998). Calibrating
enhancement principle. J. Pers. 81, 261–275. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012. the sociometer: the relationship between interpersonal appraisals and state
00807.x self-esteem. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 74, 1290–1299. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.
Germine, L., Nakayama, K., Duchaine, B., Chabris, C., Chatterjee, G., and 5.1290
Wilmer, J. (2012). Is the web as good as the lab? Comparable performance Leary, M. R., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, S. J., and Downs, D. L. (1995). Self-esteem as
from web and lab in cognitive/perceptual experiments. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 19, an interpersonal monitor. The sociometer hypothesis. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 68,
847–857. doi: 10.3758/s13423-012-0296-9 518–530. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.68.3.518
Gilbert, P. (2000). The relationship of shame, social anxiety and depression: the Lee, S., Gregg, A. P., and Park, S. H. (2013). The person in the purchase: narcissistic
role of evaluation of social rank. Clin. Psychol. Psychother. 7, 174–189. doi: consumers prefer products that positively distinguish them. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
10.1002/1099-0879 105, 335–352. doi: 10.1037/a0032703
Gilbert, P. (2001). Evolution and social anxiety. The role of attraction, social MacDonald, G., Saltzman, J. L., and Leary, M. R. (2003). Social approval and trait
competition, and social hierarchies. Psychiatr. Clin. North Am. 24, 723–751. doi: self-esteem. J. Res. Pers. 37, 23–40. doi: 10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00531-7
10.1016/S0193-953X(05)70260-4 Magee, J. C., and Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Social hierarchy: the self-reinforcing
Gilbert, P., Price, J., and Allan, S. (1995). Social comparison, social attractiveness, nature of power and status. Acad. Manage. Ann. 2, 351–398. doi:
and evolution: how might they be related? New Ideas Psychol. 13, 149–165. doi: 10.1080/19416520802211628
10.1016/0732-118X(95)00002-X Mahadevan, N., Gregg, A. P., and Sedikides, C. (2015). Not all Social Relations are
Gregg, A. P., Sedikides, C., and Gebauer, J. E. (2011). “Dynamics of identity: Created Equal: The Differential Effects of Status and Inclusion on Self-Regard and
between self-enhancement and self-assessment,” in Handbook of Identity Theory their Implications. Southampton: University of Southampton.
and Research, Vol. 1, eds S. J. Schwartz, K. Luyckx, and V. L. Vignoles Maner, J. K., DeWall, N., Baumeister, R. F., and Schaller, M. (2007).
(New York, NY: Springer), 305–327. Does social exclusion motivate interpersonal reconnection? Resolving the
Haupt, A. L., and Leary, M. R. (1997). The appeal of worthless groups: moderating “porcupine problem.” J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 92, 42–55. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.
effects of trait self-esteem. Group Dyn. 1, 124–132. doi: 10.1037/1089- 92.1.42
2699.1.2.124 Marmot, M. (2004). The Status Syndrome: How your Social Standing Affects your
Holtzman, N. S., and Strube, M. J. (2011). “The intertwined evolution of Health and Life Expectancy. London: Bloomsbury.
narcissism and short-term mating: an emerging hypothesis,” in The Handbook Maynard Smith, J. (1982). Evolution and the Theory of Games. Cambridge:
of Narcissism and Narcissistic Personality Disorder: Theoretical Approaches, Cambridge University Press.
Empirical Findings, and Treatments, eds W. K. Campbell and J. D. Miller Mazur, A. (1985). A biosocial model of status in face-to-face primate groups. Soc.
(Hoboken, NJ: Wiley), 210–220. Forces 64, 377–402. doi: 10.1093/sf/64.2.377

McCrae, R. R., and Costa, P. T. Jr. (1989). The structure of interpersonal traits: Sloman, L., and Price, J. (1987). Losing behaviour (yielding subroutine) and human
wiggins’s circumplex and the five-factor model. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 56, 586–595. depression: proximate and selective mechanisms. Ethol. Sociobiol. 8, 99–109.
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.56.4.586 doi: 10.1016/0162-3095(87)90022-7
Mead, N. L., Baumeister, R. F., Stillman, T. F., Rawn, C. D., and Vohs, K. D. (2011). Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., Lushene, R., Vagg, P. R., and Jacobs, G. A.
Social exclusion causes people to spend and consume strategically in the service (1983). State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Adults. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
of affiliation. J. Consumer Res. 37, 902–919. doi: 10.1086/656667 Psychologists Press.
Metzinger, T. (2003). Being No One: The Self-Model Theory of Subjectivity. Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Ciarocco, N. J., and Bartels, J. M.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (2007). Social exclusion decreases prosocial behavior. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 92,
Miller, J. D., McCain, J., Lynam, D. R., Few, L. R., Gentile, B., MacKillop, J., et al. 56–66. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.56
(2014). A comparison of the criterion validity of popular measures of narcissism Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., and Stucke, T. S. (2001). If
and Narcissistic Personality Disorder via the use of expert ratings. Psychol. you can’t join them, beat them: effects of social exclusion on aggressive
Assess. 26, 958–969. doi: 10.1037/a0036613 behavior. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 81, 1058–1069. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.81.
Morf, C. C., Horvath, S., and Torchetti, L. (2011). “Narcissistic self- enhancement: 6.1058
Tales of successful? self-portrayal,” in Handbook of Self-Enhancement and Self- Twenge, J. M., and Campbell, W. K. (2002). Self-esteem and socioeconomic
Protection, eds M. D. Alicke and C. Sedikides (New York, NY: Guilford), status: a meta-analytic review. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 6, 59–71. doi:
399–424. 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0601_3
Morse, S. and Gergen, K. J. (1970). Social comparison, self-consistency, and the Twenge, J. M., Konrath, S., Foster, J. D., Keith Campbell, W., and Bushman,
concept of self. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 16, 148–156. B. J. (2008). Egos inflating over time: a cross-temporal meta-analysis of the
Moskowitz, D. S. (1994). Cross-situational generality and the interpersonal Narcissistic Personality Inventory. J. Pers. 76, 875–902. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
circumplex. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 66, 921–933. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.66.5.921 6494.2008.00507.x
Nowak, M. A., and Highfield, R. (2011). Supercooperators: Why We Need each other von Mises, L. (1963). Human Action. Chicago, IL: Contemporary Books Inc.
to Succeed. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. von Rueden, C., Gurven, M., and Kaplan, H. (2008). Multiple dimensions of male
Paulhus, D. L., Robins, R. W., Trzesniewski, K. H., and Tracy, J. L. (2004). Two social status in an Amazonian society. Evol. Hum. Behav. 29, 402–415. doi:
replicable suppressor situations in personality research. Multiv. Behav. Res. 39, 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2008.05.001
303–328. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr3902_7 von Rueden, C., Gurven, M., and Kaplan, H. (2011). Why do men seek status?
Pincus, A. L., Ansell, E. B., Pimentel, C. A., Cain, N. M., Wright, A. G. C., and Levy, Fitness payoffs to dominance and prestige. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 278,
K. N. (2009). Initial construction and validation of the pathological narcissism 2223–2232. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2010.2145
inventory. Psychol. Assess. 21, 365–379. doi: 10.1037/a0016530 Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: the
Price, J. S., and Sloman, L. (1987). Depression as yielding behavior: an animal interpersonal domain. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 37, 395–412. doi: 10.1037/0022-
model based on Schjelderup-Ebbe’s pecking order. Ethol. Sociobiol. 8, 85S–98S. 3514.37.3.395
doi: 10.1016/0162-3095(87)90021-5 Williams, K. D., Cheung, C. K. T., and Choi, W. (2000). Cyberostracism: effects
Price, J. S., Sloman, L., Gilbert, P., Gardner, R., and Rohde, P. (1994). The social of being ignored over the internet. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 79, 748–762. doi:
competition hypothesis of depression. Br. J. Psychiatry 164, 309–315. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.748
10.1192/bjp.164.3.309 Wilson, E. O. (2012). The Social Conquest of Earth. New York, NY: Liveright
Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., Arndt, J., and Schimel, J. (2004). Why Publishing Corporation.
do people need self-esteem? A theoretical and empirical review. Psychol. Bull. Wojciszke, B., Baryla, W., Parzuchowski, M., Szymkow, A., and Abele, A. E. (2011).
130, 435–468. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.130.3.435 Self-esteem is dominated by agentic over communal information. Eur. J. Soc.
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D Scale: a self-report depression scale for Psychol. 40, 1–11. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.791
research in the general population. Appl. Psychol. Measur. 1, 385–401. doi: Wojciszke, B., and Struzynska-Kujalowicz, A. (2007). Power influences self-esteem.
10.1177/014662167700100306 Soc. Cogn. 25, 510–532. doi: 10.1521/soco.2007.25.4.472
Raskin, R., and Hall, C. S. (1981). The Narcissistic personality inventory: alternate Wrangham, R. W., and Wilson, M. L. (2004). Collective violence: comparisons
form reliability and further evidence of construct validity. J. Pers. Assess. 45, between youths and chimpanzees. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1036, 1–25. doi:
159–162. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa4502_10 10.1196/annals.1330.015
Rhodewalt, F., and Peterson, B. (2009). “Narcissism,” in Handbook of Individual Wray, L. D., and Stone, E. R. (2005). The role of self-esteem and anxiety in decision
Differences in Social Behavior, eds M. R. Leary and R. H. Hoyle (New York, NY: making for self versus others in relationships. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 18, 125–144.
The Guilford Press), 547–560. doi: 10.1002/bdm.490
Ridgeway, C. L., and Berger, J. (1986). Expectations, legitimation, and dominance Zadro, L., Williams, K. D., and Richardson, R. (2004). How low can you go?
behavior in task groups. Am. Sociol. Rev. 51, 603–617. doi: 10.2307/2095487 Ostracism by a computer is sufficient to lower self-reported levels of belonging,
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the Adolescent Self-image. Princeton, NJ: control, self-esteem, and meaningful existence. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 40, 560–567.
Princeton University Press. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2003.11.006
Sapolsky, R. M. (2005). The influence of social hierarchy on primate health. Science Zeigler-Hill, V. (2010). The interpersonal nature of self-esteem: do different
308, 648–652. doi: 10.1126/science.1106477 measures of self-esteem possess similar interpersonal content? J. Res. Pers. 44,
Schlitz, D. A. (1978). The Gambler [Recorded by Kenny Rogers]. On The Gambler 22–30. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2009.09.005
[Vinyl]. Los Angeles, CA: United Artists. Zink, C. F., Tong, Y., Chen, Q., Bassett, D. S., Stein, J. L., and Meyer-Lindenberg, A.
Sedikides, C., Campbell, W. K., Reeder, G. D., Elliot, A. J., and Gregg, A. P. (2002). (2008). Know your place: neural processing of social hierarchy in humans.
“Do others bring out the worst in narcissists? The "others exist for me" illusion,” Neuron 58, 273–283. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2008.01.025
in Self and Identity: Personal, Social, and Symbolic, eds Y. Kashima and M.
Foddy (Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum), 103–124. Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare that the research was
Sedikides, C., and Gregg, A. P. (2008). Self-enhancement: food for thought. conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could
Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 3, 102–116. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00068.x be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Sedikides, C., Rudich, E. A., Gregg, A. P., Kumashiro, M., and Rusbult, C. (2004).
Are normal narcissists psychologically healthy? Self-esteem matters. J. Pers. Soc. Copyright © 2016 Mahadevan, Gregg, Sedikides and De Waal-Andrews. This is an
Psychol. 87, 400–416. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.87.3.400 open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
Sidanius, J., and Pratto, F. (1999). Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted,
Hierarchy and Oppression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original
Sklansky, D. (1994). The Theory of Poker. Las Vegas: Two Plus Two Publishing. publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice.
Sloman, L. (2008). A new comprehensive evolutionary model of depression and No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these
anxiety. J. Affect. Disord. 106, 219–228. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2007.07.008 terms.

Fpsyg 07 00334

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fpsyg 07 00334

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fpsyg 07 00334

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

published: 30 March 2016

Winners, Losers, Insiders, and

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1 March 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 334

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 2 March 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 334

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 3 March 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 334

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 4 March 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 334

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 5 March 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 334

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 6 March 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 334

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 7 March 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 334

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 8 March 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 334

TABLE 2 | Means, standard deviations, and reliabilities of main variables.

Status 1–5 3.21 ↑ 0.75 0.91 3.33 ↑ 0.75 0.91

Self-esteem Narcissism Self-esteem Narcissism

Assertiveness Affiliativeness Assertiveness Affiliativeness

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 9 March 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 334

Assertiveness Affiliativeness Assertiveness Affiliativeness

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 10 March 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 334

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 11 March 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 334

Mediational Analyses II: Self-Esteem, Accordingly, to determine whether self-esteem uniquely

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 12 March 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 334

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 13 March 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 334

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 14 March 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 334

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 15 March 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 334

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 16 March 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 334

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 17 March 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 334

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 18 March 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 334

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 19 March 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 334

You might also like