Popular in Sociology

Social Identities and Divisions

A new explanation of antisemitism: Jew hatred as a civilisational phenomenon

Boston University Liah Greenfeld

Culture and Society

The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place

New York University Harvey Moltoch

Culture and Society

Carceral Entrapments: Views from the Prison/Street Interface in India

Indian Institute of Technology Delhi Mahuya Bandyopadhya

Culture and Society

Pre-problem families: predictive analytics and the future as the present

University of Southampton Rosalind Edwards

Ethnicity and Racism

Were Muslim Barbarians Really Knocking On the Gates of Ontario?

University of Ottawa Natasha Bakht

Culture and Society

Poor People’s Survival Strategies

The University of Texas at Austin Javier Auyero

Ethnicity and Racism

Sociology of Whiteness

Arizona State University Monica McDermott

The Architecture of Status Hierarchies

View more insights in Social Sciences - Sociology - Social Identities and Divisions

View more figures from University of Wisconsin Madison

View the page of Fabien Accominotti

Read the Study

Next in Social Identities and Divisions

The moral career of the genocide perpetrator

Aliza Luft | University of California Los Angeles

Death to Realism! Toward a Social Psychology of Palestinian Resistance

Mohammed A Bamyeh | University of Pittsburgh

How do the structural properties of status hierarchies, separate from individuals’ positions within them, influence inequality in material rewards?

Image courtesy of interviewee. December 6, 2024

Log-in or Sign-up to Faculti
Currently viewing this subject insight as a guest. You have insight(s) remaining for this month. Login to view 8000+ figures on the platform.

Generating Workspace...

Export as PDF

This video presents a discussion on the concept of social status, emphasizing its importance as a dimension of social stratification alongside class and power. It defines status as the value others assign to an individual and highlights its role in everyday life, influencing people's motivations and behaviors.

The speaker references sociologist Max Weber's theory, which positions status as a critical component of social hierarchy. They explain that while individual value is significant, people often perceive status in relational terms, leading to the formation of status hierarchies—mental maps that convey the relative value of individuals within a social context.

This video discusses traditional status research, detailing how higher-status individuals typically receive greater rewards and benefits, often leading to systemic inequalities. It introduces the idea of "status characteristic theory," which indicates that certain demographic attributes correlate with higher status, resulting in unequal rewards regardless of actual contributions.

A significant focus of the discourse is on the architecture of status hierarchies—specifically clarity, verticality, and rigidity. It argues that clearer and more rigid hierarchies lead individuals to accept greater inequalities in status perceptions. The speaker shares findings from an experiment illustrating that participants were more likely to endorse unequal distribution of rewards when presented with clearer evaluations of employee performances compared to narrative assessments.

The conclusion suggests that addressing and modifying how status hierarchies are perceived—by promoting less rigid and clearer hierarchies—can challenge acceptance of inequality, thereby fostering a more complex understanding of social value that moves beyond strictly hierarchical views. This video shift in perspective may lead to reduced acceptance of inequalities based on perceived status differences.

Language:

Export as PDF

Export as PDF
Here are five key points derived from the video:

1. **Definition and Importance of Status**: Social status is defined as the value individuals hold in the eyes of others. It plays a crucial role in social stratification, serving as one of the dimensions (alongside power and material resources) that determine an individual’s standing in society.

2. **Status Hierarchies and Comparisons**: Individuals do not perceive status in isolation; instead, they compare one another, leading to the formation of status hierarchies. These hierarchies express the relative value of individuals, influencing how people are viewed and treated based on their perceived status.

3. **Impact of Status on Inequality**: Higher status is correlated with various advantages, including better economic rewards, job opportunities, and increased influence. Traditional status research, such as status characteristic theory, indicates that certain demographic categories, like race and gender, consistently receive status-based rewards, contributing to systemic inequalities.

4. **Architecture of Status Hierarchies**: The clarity, verticality, and rigidity of status hierarchies influence the extent of inequality. Clear and rigid hierarchies increase perceived value differences among individuals, potentially leading to greater acceptance of inequality in rewards between high and low-status individuals.

5. **Challenging Hierarchical Perceptions**: The video argues for re-evaluating how people perceive status hierarchies. It suggests that reducing clarity and verticality in status systems may foster a more equitable perspective, rendering individuals less likely to accept stark inequalities based on perceived status, hence promoting more holistic and multidimensional views of value.

Export as PDF
Here are some key quotes extracted from your video, focusing on the main concepts related to social status, status hierarchies, and their implications for inequality:

1. **Definition of Status**: "Social status or status for short is, traditionally understood as the value individuals are accorded by others."

2. **Importance of Status**: "Our status, how we are valued by others matters a lot to us. We care about our status from, you know, the classroom to the workplace."

3. **Weber's Theory**: "If you go back to early 20th century sociologist Max Weber, he theorized actually status as one of the basic dimensions of social stratification alongside power."

4. **Status Hierarchies**: "When we see others, we don't just see their individual value; we see relations of greater, lesser, or equal value among different individuals."

5. **Benefits of Higher Status**: "Status comes with benefits... individuals with higher status enjoy greater monetary rewards for the same work."

6. **Status Characteristic Theory**: "In our societies, higher status tends to be attached to certain demographic categories, defined by gender or race or ethnicity in particular."

7. **Visualizing Status Hierarchies**: "Looking at status hierarchies means looking at the image we all have of the relations of greater, lesser, or equal value among a set of others."

8. **Properties of Status Hierarchies**: "Our key argument is that the clearer, the more vertical and the more rigid the maps we have of the relative value of others, the greater the spread in the rewards received by those at the top and those at the bottom."

9. **Clarity and Inequality**: "The clearer the hierarchy, the more unequally participants were willing to reward the three employees."

10. **Challenging Hierarchical Assumptions**: "When things are evaluated narratively, people are more prepared to question their idea that it makes sense to think of different performances in hierarchical terms."

11. **Architectural Features of Hierarchies**: "The properties of the mental maps that people form to one another could we act on the properties of these mental maps, to reduce people's willingness to be unequal."

12. **Recommendations for Status Systems**: "Maybe if you do this, you might manage to essentially fight back against the tendency that these clarity, verticality, rigidity of status hierarchies have."

These quotes encapsulate the core ideas discussed in your video and highlight the intricate relationship between social status, its perception, and its implications for inequality.

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP=LOCAL:00:00:00.000,MPEGTS:90000

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:01.085
Think this is a great question and

2
00:00:01.085 --> 00:00:02.205
definitely where we should be starting.

3
00:00:02.625 --> 00:00:05.365
Uh, I think it's important that if we talk about this,

4
00:00:05.425 --> 00:00:08.565
we start with a definition of status,

5
00:00:08.695 --> 00:00:11.685
which may be a little bit unclear to some of our listeners.

6
00:00:12.385 --> 00:00:14.165
Um, so social status

7
00:00:14.705 --> 00:00:19.485
or status for short is, traditionally understood

8
00:00:19.685 --> 00:00:24.085
as the value individuals are recorded by others.

9
00:00:25.385 --> 00:00:28.365
Uh, so it's the value people see in you,

10
00:00:28.425 --> 00:00:30.125
and this is your, your status, right?

11
00:00:30.425 --> 00:00:31.485
And now, two things I wanna

12
00:00:31.485 --> 00:00:32.605
stress a little bit about status.

13
00:00:33.225 --> 00:00:36.805
Um, one is that it's a, an important,

14
00:00:37.575 --> 00:00:40.245
thing out there, an important, first,

15
00:00:40.595 --> 00:00:43.245
theoretically an important dimension of,

16
00:00:43.465 --> 00:00:45.245
social stratification.

17
00:00:45.505 --> 00:00:48.845
If you go back to, you know, early 20th century

18
00:00:49.355 --> 00:00:53.405
sociologist Max Weber, he theorized actually status

19
00:00:53.585 --> 00:00:55.165
as one of the basic dimensions

20
00:00:55.165 --> 00:00:59.525
of social stratification alongside power,

21
00:01:00.345 --> 00:01:03.565
or like the, the, the, the people's control over the action

22
00:01:03.565 --> 00:01:05.885
of others and alongside class

23
00:01:06.105 --> 00:01:10.165
or people's control over, material resources.

24
00:01:10.745 --> 00:01:13.045
And so status, the value other people

25
00:01:13.945 --> 00:01:18.405
accord you was this third dimension of,

26
00:01:18.745 --> 00:01:21.525
social stratification, social hierarchy, if you want.

27
00:01:21.715 --> 00:01:25.605
Just also, you know, status is also important to every one

28
00:01:25.605 --> 00:01:27.085
of us on a day-to-Day basis.

29
00:01:27.465 --> 00:01:31.205
Um, our status, how we are valued by others

30
00:01:31.915 --> 00:01:33.085
matters a lot to us.

31
00:01:33.305 --> 00:01:36.725
Uh, we care about our status from, you know, the classroom.

32
00:01:37.235 --> 00:01:38.925
Kids in the classroom care about their

33
00:01:38.925 --> 00:01:40.605
status, in the workplace.

34
00:01:40.605 --> 00:01:43.525
You care about your status, being valued by others

35
00:01:43.905 --> 00:01:45.365
and status is really a big driver

36
00:01:45.505 --> 00:01:46.805
of a lot of things that we do.

37
00:01:46.805 --> 00:01:49.005
Acquiring status or maintaining our status is a big,

38
00:01:49.065 --> 00:01:50.245
driver of what we do.

39
00:01:50.825 --> 00:01:53.805
Um, the other big thing I wanna stress about status is

40
00:01:54.405 --> 00:01:57.145
status is attached to individuals.

41
00:01:57.405 --> 00:01:58.785
So it it is given by others.

42
00:01:59.055 --> 00:02:01.625
It's in the eye of the beholder if you want.

43
00:02:02.125 --> 00:02:04.945
Um, but it's attached to individuals, right?

44
00:02:05.405 --> 00:02:07.385
Uh, it's a characteristic of individuals.

45
00:02:08.045 --> 00:02:12.585
And so, to answer your question, one of,

46
00:02:12.925 --> 00:02:16.545
our core ideas in this article we're talking about was

47
00:02:16.545 --> 00:02:20.025
that this individual value,

48
00:02:21.195 --> 00:02:25.695
is not all of what we see when we look at others out there

49
00:02:25.695 --> 00:02:27.095
and think about their value.

50
00:02:27.715 --> 00:02:29.975
And that's because we, we don't really see others

51
00:02:30.395 --> 00:02:31.575
in isolation.

52
00:02:32.115 --> 00:02:34.095
We tend to compare others

53
00:02:34.555 --> 00:02:37.775
and, you know, how they rank relative to one another,

54
00:02:37.845 --> 00:02:41.775
another, in terms, of their value, right?

55
00:02:42.275 --> 00:02:44.735
And, and therefore, we don't only see these individual

56
00:02:44.775 --> 00:02:47.535
readings of value that confer status to people,

57
00:02:48.275 --> 00:02:52.495
but we see relations of, you know, greater or lesser

58
00:02:52.555 --> 00:02:55.255
or equal value among people.

59
00:02:56.035 --> 00:02:58.895
And these, mental

60
00:02:59.275 --> 00:03:01.925
Maps that we form about the relative value

61
00:03:02.065 --> 00:03:06.645
of different people is what we refer to as status,

62
00:03:07.305 --> 00:03:08.685
hierarchies.

63
00:03:08.865 --> 00:03:10.725
So give, giving you an example.

64
00:03:11.185 --> 00:03:14.365
Um, when I think of the

65
00:03:15.905 --> 00:03:19.015
value and relative value of different colleges

66
00:03:19.115 --> 00:03:22.095
and universities in a, in a college ranking

67
00:03:22.155 --> 00:03:26.015
or in a league table to speak, like you do in the uk,

68
00:03:26.615 --> 00:03:30.055
I have an image of, you know, the value

69
00:03:30.075 --> 00:03:32.095
and relative value of different entities,

70
00:03:32.095 --> 00:03:34.015
different colleges, different university,

71
00:03:34.195 --> 00:03:35.935
and how they relate to one another.

72
00:03:36.225 --> 00:03:37.855
Which one is higher, which one is lower,

73
00:03:38.315 --> 00:03:39.735
compared to one another?

74
00:03:40.395 --> 00:03:42.935
Um, so this is an example, typically of

75
00:03:42.935 --> 00:03:44.535
what we call a a state's hierarchy.

76
00:03:44.595 --> 00:03:48.415
So the bottom line here is that when we, when we see others,

77
00:03:49.115 --> 00:03:50.495
and when we think about their value,

78
00:03:50.635 --> 00:03:53.935
we don't just see their individual value, there are status,

79
00:03:54.715 --> 00:03:57.575
we also see relations of greater, lesser,

80
00:03:57.955 --> 00:04:00.855
or equal value among different individuals.

81
00:04:01.635 --> 00:04:03.415
And, and when we think of these relations,

82
00:04:03.825 --> 00:04:07.055
we're thinking about status hierarchies specifically.

83
00:04:07.615 --> 00:04:10.815
I think there's one, one way of thinking about this is for

84
00:04:11.485 --> 00:04:14.655
traditional status research.

85
00:04:15.395 --> 00:04:19.175
Um, status I was saying is, is this,

86
00:04:20.805 --> 00:04:23.485
property which is attached to individuals.

87
00:04:23.945 --> 00:04:27.005
And starting from this, premise,

88
00:04:27.875 --> 00:04:32.155
this research shows that status comes

89
00:04:32.705 --> 00:04:33.915
with benefits.

90
00:04:34.775 --> 00:04:39.305
And more specifically, that essentially there are advantages

91
00:04:39.305 --> 00:04:42.305
that accrue to the people with higher status

92
00:04:43.525 --> 00:04:48.505
and disadvantages that plague the people with lower status.

93
00:04:49.125 --> 00:04:53.505
And so, traditional status research has shown that,

94
00:04:53.605 --> 00:04:57.505
you know, across a wide range of social context from,

95
00:04:57.765 --> 00:05:01.865
you know, university league tables to,

96
00:05:02.085 --> 00:05:06.065
the workplace, to, jury

97
00:05:06.895 --> 00:05:11.665
work when people are on jury duty, people

98
00:05:13.445 --> 00:05:15.665
who have more status.

99
00:05:16.085 --> 00:05:19.705
So people who see, see are seen by others

100
00:05:19.805 --> 00:05:21.105
as having more value

101
00:05:21.205 --> 00:05:24.625
or who have more of what a society values, if you want, tend

102
00:05:24.625 --> 00:05:28.865
to experience more favorable outcomes than actors

103
00:05:29.055 --> 00:05:32.465
with less of what a society values.

104
00:05:32.725 --> 00:05:35.825
So actors with higher status enjoy greater

105
00:05:36.905 --> 00:05:39.545
monetary rewards for the same work.

106
00:05:40.525 --> 00:05:44.825
Uh, they might enjoy, more job offers,

107
00:05:45.605 --> 00:05:46.865
more promotions.

108
00:05:47.415 --> 00:05:49.465
They might get more opportunities to speak.

109
00:05:50.385 --> 00:05:54.245
Uh, they might have greater influence in, you know,

110
00:05:54.245 --> 00:05:59.045
collective decision making in small groups, that,

111
00:06:00.145 --> 00:06:02.445
gather to make decisions about, you know,

112
00:06:02.505 --> 00:06:04.565
the direction the firm should go

113
00:06:04.565 --> 00:06:05.765
into and so on and so forth.

114
00:06:06.065 --> 00:06:10.845
In traditional status, research status is used to

115
00:06:11.475 --> 00:06:16.045
explain inequality in how

116
00:06:17.705 --> 00:06:22.185
much rewards people get for the same work.

117
00:06:22.805 --> 00:06:25.905
Um, and an example of this research is called, you know,

118
00:06:25.905 --> 00:06:29.515
status characteristic Theory.

119
00:06:29.855 --> 00:06:31.115
So status, it's a big name,

120
00:06:31.115 --> 00:06:32.795
but it's a, it's relatively easy

121
00:06:32.795 --> 00:06:35.235
to understand status characteristic theory argues that,

122
00:06:35.235 --> 00:06:37.835
you know, in our societies, higher status tends

123
00:06:37.835 --> 00:06:42.195
to be attached to certain demographic categories,

124
00:06:42.465 --> 00:06:46.915
defined by new gender or race or ethnicity in particular.

125
00:06:47.175 --> 00:06:50.235
And as a consequence, status characteristic theory,

126
00:06:50.575 --> 00:06:53.955
argues and actually shows that, individuals

127
00:06:53.955 --> 00:06:55.915
who are in these high status categories.

128
00:06:56.215 --> 00:06:59.315
So, men, whites tend

129
00:06:59.315 --> 00:07:01.675
to receive better material rewards

130
00:07:02.215 --> 00:07:05.115
or have, you know, greater influence,

131
00:07:05.905 --> 00:07:09.975
even when their contribution are not different in terms

132
00:07:09.975 --> 00:07:13.655
of their quality, than do people in,

133
00:07:13.985 --> 00:07:15.815
lower status categories.

134
00:07:16.475 --> 00:07:19.095
So this is the kind of classic

135
00:07:19.755 --> 00:07:22.135
way we think about the relationship

136
00:07:22.135 --> 00:07:23.575
between status and inequality.

137
00:07:24.075 --> 00:07:26.295
And here, really like the, I I, I wanna

138
00:07:26.955 --> 00:07:28.895
stress a little bit this bottom line, which is that

139
00:07:29.845 --> 00:07:32.535
here status is used to explain inequities

140
00:07:33.115 --> 00:07:36.455
or bias if you want, in the allocation of rewards,

141
00:07:36.965 --> 00:07:39.505
that advantage,

142
00:07:41.095 --> 00:07:43.345
high status actors, right?

143
00:07:43.565 --> 00:07:47.145
How does a focus on status hierarchies add to this kind

144
00:07:47.145 --> 00:07:49.505
of traditional understanding of how status kind

145
00:07:49.505 --> 00:07:52.505
of shapes inequality and, and contributes to inequality?

146
00:07:52.575 --> 00:07:57.305
Looking at status hierarchies means looking at the image,

147
00:07:58.085 --> 00:08:02.425
we all have of the relations of greater, lesser,

148
00:08:02.485 --> 00:08:06.345
or equal value, among a set of others.

149
00:08:07.085 --> 00:08:09.065
Um, there,

150
00:08:09.525 --> 00:08:14.255
and considering this, this kind

151
00:08:14.255 --> 00:08:16.615
of mental map that we have of these kind of relations

152
00:08:16.615 --> 00:08:19.255
of greater or lesser or equal value among,

153
00:08:19.305 --> 00:08:22.015
among people we argue is, is important

154
00:08:22.015 --> 00:08:25.095
because, it enables you to think about the properties

155
00:08:25.395 --> 00:08:28.335
of these mental maps, of these relations of superior

156
00:08:28.475 --> 00:08:31.895
or equal or inferior value that you see among others.

157
00:08:32.315 --> 00:08:36.135
Uh, so for example, when I, when I envision a hierarchy

158
00:08:36.195 --> 00:08:38.575
of value among my colleagues in terms of, you know,

159
00:08:38.595 --> 00:08:41.815
how valuable they are to the company relative

160
00:08:41.815 --> 00:08:44.495
to one another, what does this image look like?

161
00:08:44.685 --> 00:08:49.295
What are the properties of my mental hierarchy of who

162
00:08:49.875 --> 00:08:54.415
is more valuable than, whoever else out there?

163
00:08:54.595 --> 00:08:57.525
So is this image very clear to me?

164
00:08:57.585 --> 00:09:00.325
Am I very clear on, you know, this person is top,

165
00:09:00.395 --> 00:09:02.245
this person's bottom, and,

166
00:09:02.365 --> 00:09:03.725
I know exactly a little bit the difference

167
00:09:03.725 --> 00:09:06.285
between them in terms of the value and, and, and,

168
00:09:06.385 --> 00:09:08.805
and the value they're bringing to a firm, for example.

169
00:09:09.505 --> 00:09:11.405
Um, or is it more blurry?

170
00:09:11.465 --> 00:09:14.885
Is it, am I a little bit in a, in the midst as to, you know,

171
00:09:14.945 --> 00:09:17.085
who is more valuable and who is less?

172
00:09:17.545 --> 00:09:20.765
Um, similarly, is, is my image something that is rigid

173
00:09:20.875 --> 00:09:23.445
that I just, hold onto it?

174
00:09:23.825 --> 00:09:26.685
Uh, and I never really depart from this,

175
00:09:26.685 --> 00:09:28.205
or am I prepared to think,

176
00:09:28.385 --> 00:09:30.445
it my am my shift a little bit, it my move?

177
00:09:31.105 --> 00:09:33.245
Uh, so then more fluid in a way.

178
00:09:33.785 --> 00:09:38.045
And so these properties of the mental maps

179
00:09:38.045 --> 00:09:41.205
that we form about the relations of greater lesser value

180
00:09:41.205 --> 00:09:45.965
among others is what we refer to as the architecture of,

181
00:09:46.025 --> 00:09:49.605
status hierarchies, these kind of architectural properties,

182
00:09:50.505 --> 00:09:54.205
of the status hierarchies, these mental maps

183
00:09:54.205 --> 00:09:56.085
that I have about, the, the,

184
00:09:56.085 --> 00:09:57.285
the relative value of others.

185
00:09:57.865 --> 00:10:01.725
Now, why does all of this matter, for inequality?

186
00:10:02.185 --> 00:10:05.885
Um, well, as I was telling you, I mean,

187
00:10:06.235 --> 00:10:09.205
most traditional status research argues

188
00:10:09.205 --> 00:10:14.045
that status positions are associated with the rewards

189
00:10:14.045 --> 00:10:15.165
that we receive from society.

190
00:10:15.225 --> 00:10:17.445
So people with more status are gonna receive more

191
00:10:17.995 --> 00:10:19.725
than people with less,

192
00:10:20.155 --> 00:10:22.245
even if their contribution is not different.

193
00:10:22.785 --> 00:10:25.725
Um, but our idea is that by, by focusing on status

194
00:10:26.245 --> 00:10:29.685
hierarchies and their properties, their architecture,

195
00:10:30.265 --> 00:10:31.725
we could say something more than this.

196
00:10:31.785 --> 00:10:34.165
We could say not just who's gonna receive more

197
00:10:34.935 --> 00:10:36.525
based on their status position,

198
00:10:37.345 --> 00:10:41.685
but also how much more the people at the top

199
00:10:43.265 --> 00:10:46.405
are gonna receive compared to the people at the bottom,

200
00:10:46.545 --> 00:10:51.405
if you want, based on the properties of

201
00:10:51.945 --> 00:10:53.765
the status hierarchy that they're in.

202
00:10:53.915 --> 00:10:56.165
What we argue in the article is that

203
00:10:57.195 --> 00:10:59.285
depending on the architecture

204
00:10:59.665 --> 00:11:02.565
or the architecture features of the status hierarchy,

205
00:11:03.425 --> 00:11:05.765
you're gonna have a greater spread

206
00:11:06.905 --> 00:11:09.125
in the re rewards received by those at the top

207
00:11:09.785 --> 00:11:12.605
and those at the bottom, or are lesser spread, again,

208
00:11:12.605 --> 00:11:13.965
depending on the, on these properties.

209
00:11:14.105 --> 00:11:17.685
And in the article, we examine like three such properties,

210
00:11:17.895 --> 00:11:20.445
three architectural features of, of status hierarchies

211
00:11:20.755 --> 00:11:22.205
that people have in mind when they,

212
00:11:22.205 --> 00:11:24.645
they compare others for their value.

213
00:11:25.025 --> 00:11:26.085
And these are the greater

214
00:11:26.085 --> 00:11:28.205
or lesser clarity of status hierarchy.

215
00:11:28.915 --> 00:11:32.565
They're greater or lesser verticality, and they're greater

216
00:11:32.585 --> 00:11:34.205
or lesser rigidity.

217
00:11:34.905 --> 00:11:38.405
And, and our key argument is that the clearer,

218
00:11:39.425 --> 00:11:43.845
the more vertical and the more rigid the maps

219
00:11:43.925 --> 00:11:48.645
that we have of the relative value of others,

220
00:11:49.425 --> 00:11:53.795
the greater the inequality we are prepared to accept,

221
00:11:54.215 --> 00:11:56.875
in the rewards received by those at the top.

222
00:11:56.935 --> 00:12:00.835
And at the bottom of, of these, hierarchies,

223
00:12:01.245 --> 00:12:02.515
these three dimensions

224
00:12:02.515 --> 00:12:04.035
of the architecture status hierarchies.

225
00:12:04.135 --> 00:12:08.725
So verticality, you're asking, what we mean when we say

226
00:12:08.725 --> 00:12:10.765
that, a status hierarchy.

227
00:12:11.505 --> 00:12:14.885
Uh, so this mental map that I have for sorting others,

228
00:12:15.665 --> 00:12:18.205
by degree of greater or lesser value could be more

229
00:12:18.205 --> 00:12:21.965
or less vertical, or more or less horizontal.

230
00:12:21.985 --> 00:12:26.745
On the flip side, here, essentially we argue

231
00:12:26.745 --> 00:12:31.725
that the verticality corresponds to the kind of depth

232
00:12:31.905 --> 00:12:35.485
of the status distinctions I'm willing to see among people

233
00:12:36.345 --> 00:12:37.405
in environmental map.

234
00:12:37.665 --> 00:12:40.845
So for example, a more vertical hierarchy is gonna display

235
00:12:41.395 --> 00:12:45.925
more differentiation, into discrete status positions.

236
00:12:45.985 --> 00:12:47.525
So that's the case, for example, in a,

237
00:12:47.705 --> 00:12:52.245
in a full fledge ranking, you know, that has many, many,

238
00:12:52.245 --> 00:12:53.405
many status positions.

239
00:12:53.465 --> 00:12:55.805
As many positions as there are people in the ranking

240
00:12:55.985 --> 00:12:58.325
or universities in the ranking, for example,

241
00:12:59.105 --> 00:13:03.445
or a a, a very finely grained caste system is a

242
00:13:03.445 --> 00:13:04.725
very vertical hierarchy.

243
00:13:04.725 --> 00:13:06.285
You know, you got many, many cast,

244
00:13:06.345 --> 00:13:10.965
and the distinctions go very deep, and, and,

245
00:13:11.105 --> 00:13:14.525
and very specific and very discreet if you want.

246
00:13:15.025 --> 00:13:19.605
Um, on the other hand, a more horizontal,

247
00:13:19.755 --> 00:13:23.525
hierarchy is gonna feature, you know, rougher distinctions

248
00:13:23.525 --> 00:13:24.885
between broad groups

249
00:13:24.945 --> 00:13:28.045
of high status versus low status actors.

250
00:13:28.345 --> 00:13:30.885
So, for example, to stay in the context

251
00:13:30.945 --> 00:13:34.485
of higher education, the distinction between Ivy League

252
00:13:35.065 --> 00:13:39.405
and non Ivy League universities is not very vertical.

253
00:13:40.035 --> 00:13:43.245
It's, it only has two groups, two, and,

254
00:13:43.245 --> 00:13:45.925
and one distinction essentially between IV

255
00:13:45.925 --> 00:13:47.085
and non iv, right?

256
00:13:47.385 --> 00:13:50.725
So that's what we call, greater or lesser verticality.

257
00:13:51.265 --> 00:13:52.885
We can define it first, like,

258
00:13:52.905 --> 00:13:56.935
and rigidity is the notion that,

259
00:13:57.885 --> 00:14:00.575
depending on the stability

260
00:14:01.515 --> 00:14:06.095
or flux or churn that I see,

261
00:14:06.115 --> 00:14:10.455
or I'm prepared to see in a, a, a, a hierarchy,

262
00:14:10.575 --> 00:14:13.135
a hierarchy is gonna be deemed more rigid

263
00:14:13.395 --> 00:14:14.815
or more, fluid.

264
00:14:15.355 --> 00:14:20.135
So you could think, if, if I am prepared to think

265
00:14:20.135 --> 00:14:23.095
that actually, criteria for

266
00:14:23.095 --> 00:14:27.215
what constitutes value in a given social setting, are,

267
00:14:27.915 --> 00:14:32.095
you know, influx are changing, then I'm gonna be thinking

268
00:14:32.095 --> 00:14:34.175
that this hierarchy is pretty fluid.

269
00:14:34.175 --> 00:14:37.255
Because, you know, people who might be valued highly today

270
00:14:37.385 --> 00:14:41.415
based on today's criteria, might tomorrow end up being,

271
00:14:41.635 --> 00:14:44.855
devalued compared to what they were yesterday,

272
00:14:44.885 --> 00:14:47.455
because the criteria have changed, right?

273
00:14:47.915 --> 00:14:52.685
And so there, you, you would have in, in settings

274
00:14:52.685 --> 00:14:56.685
where the criteria for valuing people,

275
00:14:57.585 --> 00:15:01.605
are influx, evolve a lot, change a lot.

276
00:15:01.945 --> 00:15:06.085
Um, you'll have people who form a more fluid,

277
00:15:06.785 --> 00:15:11.365
vision of how people rank relative to one another.

278
00:15:11.905 --> 00:15:13.325
Um, and

279
00:15:13.325 --> 00:15:18.125
therefore, a less rigid vision of how people fare,

280
00:15:18.425 --> 00:15:20.005
relative to one another.

281
00:15:20.195 --> 00:15:24.885
Here, I think status hierarchies greater lesser clarity.

282
00:15:25.225 --> 00:15:29.565
Uh, the best way to see this is say it hinges on the degree

283
00:15:29.565 --> 00:15:33.685
of certainty that people have about the, the

284
00:15:34.535 --> 00:15:35.845
difference in value

285
00:15:36.355 --> 00:15:39.165
between any two individuals in the hierarchy.

286
00:15:39.465 --> 00:15:43.365
So, you know, I may have an image of the relative value

287
00:15:43.365 --> 00:15:46.445
of individuals that's very clear, very clear cut,

288
00:15:46.635 --> 00:15:50.485
very precise, where I feel I know that someone is, you know,

289
00:15:50.585 --> 00:15:52.885
twice as valuable as this other person.

290
00:15:53.145 --> 00:15:57.005
And this may be because there's an evaluation device out

291
00:15:57.005 --> 00:15:59.965
there, such as a rating system that tells me that, you know,

292
00:15:59.965 --> 00:16:01.205
this employee is a three

293
00:16:01.265 --> 00:16:05.885
and this employee is a six on a scale of one to 10.

294
00:16:06.425 --> 00:16:07.965
And, and therefore I'm like, okay, well,

295
00:16:08.315 --> 00:16:09.685
this one is twice as good.

296
00:16:09.685 --> 00:16:11.365
This is that one because there are six,

297
00:16:11.385 --> 00:16:12.805
and the other ones are three.

298
00:16:13.265 --> 00:16:14.925
Um, so that's very clear.

299
00:16:15.345 --> 00:16:20.285
Oh, alternatively, you may have a more, you know,

300
00:16:20.765 --> 00:16:25.445
a fuzzier, blurrier, image of how people,

301
00:16:26.385 --> 00:16:31.035
compare with one another, where,

302
00:16:31.175 --> 00:16:32.395
you know, you might think,

303
00:16:32.395 --> 00:16:34.355
this person is better than this other person, but,

304
00:16:35.585 --> 00:16:38.165
and maybe it's twice as better, but I'm not too sure.

305
00:16:38.185 --> 00:16:42.165
It might be, it might be three times, it might be just,

306
00:16:42.505 --> 00:16:45.205
1.5 times.

307
00:16:45.715 --> 00:16:46.725
It's a little bit unclear

308
00:16:46.825 --> 00:16:49.445
how distant really they are in, in their value.

309
00:16:50.025 --> 00:16:53.565
Um, and this can happen, for example, when, you know,

310
00:16:53.595 --> 00:16:56.405
instead of having a single evaluation device

311
00:16:56.545 --> 00:16:57.925
that's gonna tell me,

312
00:16:57.925 --> 00:16:59.525
this person's a three, this person's a six.

313
00:16:59.675 --> 00:17:02.325
Imagine you have multiple evaluation devices,

314
00:17:03.105 --> 00:17:08.085
and they have different readings of the value of, of,

315
00:17:08.465 --> 00:17:12.765
and relative value of different individuals, well then,

316
00:17:13.245 --> 00:17:14.845
I won't be able to really know, you know,

317
00:17:14.845 --> 00:17:17.245
which one is the right one, which one is a, a

318
00:17:17.995 --> 00:17:19.365
more accurate one.

319
00:17:19.785 --> 00:17:22.205
And so it will introduce some kind of blurriness

320
00:17:22.265 --> 00:17:25.125
to my reading of how people compare to one another in terms

321
00:17:25.125 --> 00:17:28.005
of their, their value, right?

322
00:17:28.345 --> 00:17:29.805
Uh, if, if I got these kind

323
00:17:29.805 --> 00:17:32.805
of discordant evaluation criteria, if you want, this is,

324
00:17:32.805 --> 00:17:35.165
this is where we're getting to really the core of, of

325
00:17:35.195 --> 00:17:36.885
what we are arguing in there.

326
00:17:37.385 --> 00:17:42.125
Um, so we got multiple examples in the, in the article of

327
00:17:42.585 --> 00:17:45.965
how really these, architectural features

328
00:17:46.185 --> 00:17:48.565
of status hierarchies that I've been telling you about,

329
00:17:49.495 --> 00:17:53.325
shape, inequality,

330
00:17:53.825 --> 00:17:56.605
in the rewards enjoyed by people at the top

331
00:17:56.605 --> 00:17:58.085
and at the bottom of the hierarchy.

332
00:17:58.265 --> 00:17:59.925
But I think I'm gonna,

333
00:18:00.185 --> 00:18:02.805
I'm gonna focus on just one striking example here.

334
00:18:02.825 --> 00:18:04.245
One I like because it's also related

335
00:18:04.245 --> 00:18:05.725
to work I've done myself.

336
00:18:06.105 --> 00:18:07.205
Um, so,

337
00:18:07.865 --> 00:18:10.845
and it's about how the greater clarity of status hierarchies

338
00:18:11.495 --> 00:18:15.405
makes us more willing to, accept inequality

339
00:18:16.065 --> 00:18:17.245
in the rewards received

340
00:18:17.265 --> 00:18:19.325
by higher versus lower status actors.

341
00:18:19.825 --> 00:18:23.805
Um, so the example is, it's actually

342
00:18:25.255 --> 00:18:30.195
was, uncovered through an experiment that I did

343
00:18:30.225 --> 00:18:33.235
with, colleague of mine.

344
00:18:33.815 --> 00:18:38.025
Um, and in this experiment you're gonna see, it makes you,

345
00:18:38.285 --> 00:18:42.305
you know, really kind of, see what, what the logic

346
00:18:42.405 --> 00:18:44.985
of the argument here is in this, in this experiment, we,

347
00:18:45.185 --> 00:18:48.665
we asked a panel of participants to our experiment

348
00:18:48.965 --> 00:18:53.865
to divide a bonus among a set

349
00:18:53.865 --> 00:18:58.025
of three, unequally performing employees

350
00:18:58.835 --> 00:19:01.305
based on the reading of these employees,

351
00:19:02.055 --> 00:19:03.825
performance reviews, right?

352
00:19:04.485 --> 00:19:09.185
So people were seeing a, a status hierarchy, so a map

353
00:19:09.325 --> 00:19:11.785
of the relative value of three employees,

354
00:19:11.925 --> 00:19:15.625
and these employees were, unequally valuable

355
00:19:15.625 --> 00:19:17.705
to the firm performing unequally well,

356
00:19:18.245 --> 00:19:22.095
and, we were asking them

357
00:19:22.275 --> 00:19:25.095
to create inequality between the employees

358
00:19:25.155 --> 00:19:27.295
by dividing up the bonus between them.

359
00:19:27.435 --> 00:19:30.815
And what we did is we manipulated the, one

360
00:19:30.815 --> 00:19:33.175
of the architectural features of the hierarchy

361
00:19:33.175 --> 00:19:35.935
that people could see, which was the clarity of the,

362
00:19:35.935 --> 00:19:37.415
status hierarchy among employees.

363
00:19:37.415 --> 00:19:42.175
That's the clarity of employees, levels of performance

364
00:19:42.175 --> 00:19:43.255
and relative performance

365
00:19:43.315 --> 00:19:45.215
as they appear to participants, right?

366
00:19:45.555 --> 00:19:50.015
And specifically, in, in one condition,

367
00:19:50.045 --> 00:19:54.615
performance evaluations were presented as narrative reviews.

368
00:19:55.075 --> 00:19:58.655
And because they were narrative reviews, they retained some,

369
00:19:59.115 --> 00:20:03.895
you know, blurriness a little bit, when it came

370
00:20:03.895 --> 00:20:08.495
to, deciding on the precise distance in the value

371
00:20:08.495 --> 00:20:10.975
between any E two employees,

372
00:20:11.475 --> 00:20:14.695
and then in another condition,

373
00:20:14.705 --> 00:20:17.455
these narrative reviews were accompanied by a kind

374
00:20:17.455 --> 00:20:18.615
of clear cut rating

375
00:20:18.755 --> 00:20:22.975
of each employee's performance on just a variable scale,

376
00:20:23.125 --> 00:20:26.295
ranging from unacceptable to exceptional.

377
00:20:26.675 --> 00:20:30.175
And then in the third condition, this rating was presented

378
00:20:30.175 --> 00:20:31.415
as a numerical score.

379
00:20:31.915 --> 00:20:33.415
So you see how in the second

380
00:20:33.515 --> 00:20:36.575
and third condition, what we were doing, we introducing

381
00:20:37.455 --> 00:20:42.295
increasingly greater clarity to the hierarchy,

382
00:20:42.675 --> 00:20:46.975
and the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the perceptions

383
00:20:47.005 --> 00:20:49.885
that people could form of the relative performance

384
00:20:49.885 --> 00:20:51.085
of the three employees.

385
00:20:51.825 --> 00:20:56.545
Um, and that, you know, the catch being that we did all

386
00:20:56.545 --> 00:20:58.625
of this without altering

387
00:21:00.915 --> 00:21:02.855
the perceived level of performance

388
00:21:02.855 --> 00:21:06.015
that on average participants, we are seeing,

389
00:21:06.155 --> 00:21:07.455
in each employee.

390
00:21:07.635 --> 00:21:10.335
So across conditions, people, on average,

391
00:21:10.595 --> 00:21:14.695
we are seeing the three employees as performing,

392
00:21:15.675 --> 00:21:18.135
equally differently,

393
00:21:19.395 --> 00:21:24.335
but our manipulation just increase the degree of clarity

394
00:21:25.215 --> 00:21:29.455
with which they perceived, these relations

395
00:21:29.455 --> 00:21:31.175
of create or lesser performance

396
00:21:31.175 --> 00:21:34.175
or this, status hierarchy here.

397
00:21:34.555 --> 00:21:36.815
And in the experiment, that's the beauty of experiments.

398
00:21:36.915 --> 00:21:40.295
We find that, you know, the clearer the hierarchy, the more

399
00:21:40.815 --> 00:21:44.255
unequally participants were willing to reward

400
00:21:45.155 --> 00:21:46.295
the three employees.

401
00:21:46.915 --> 00:21:50.015
Um, and specifically I think it's pretty striking, like

402
00:21:50.015 --> 00:21:51.975
between the kind of, condition

403
00:21:51.975 --> 00:21:55.215
where people were presented with a kind of narrative,

404
00:21:55.505 --> 00:21:59.575
evaluation, of the employee's performance

405
00:21:59.875 --> 00:22:04.095
and the condition where they saw a numerical score.

406
00:22:05.145 --> 00:22:09.605
People were willing to give 30% more

407
00:22:09.605 --> 00:22:14.525
of a difference in, bonuses to the top

408
00:22:14.525 --> 00:22:17.405
and the bottom employee in the latter condition,

409
00:22:17.625 --> 00:22:20.325
the numerical score compared to the narrative condition,

410
00:22:20.325 --> 00:22:21.925
which was blurrier, right?

411
00:22:22.385 --> 00:22:24.965
Um, so these are the same employees,

412
00:22:25.035 --> 00:22:26.965
same performance, same value.

413
00:22:27.105 --> 00:22:29.325
People are called them. The sheer fact

414
00:22:29.325 --> 00:22:33.465
that the hierarchy is presented as more precise, more clear

415
00:22:33.995 --> 00:22:37.345
makes the level of inequality, that we are prepared

416
00:22:37.345 --> 00:22:41.345
to accept between high and low actors increase, right?

417
00:22:42.085 --> 00:22:47.015
Um, and the, the reason why that is, we argue, is

418
00:22:47.015 --> 00:22:51.515
that when people are presented with clear,

419
00:22:51.975 --> 00:22:55.395
status hierarchies, they are more prepared

420
00:22:55.495 --> 00:23:00.115
to accept the idea of a hierarchy

421
00:23:00.115 --> 00:23:02.155
of value between individuals.

422
00:23:02.155 --> 00:23:05.235
They're more prepared to think about differences in values

423
00:23:05.695 --> 00:23:10.155
in these kind of hierarchical terms, as opposed

424
00:23:10.175 --> 00:23:13.435
to when they're presented with, more, you know,

425
00:23:13.435 --> 00:23:17.895
with blurrier,

426
00:23:18.895 --> 00:23:22.015
hierarchies, then, you know, people are more prepared to

427
00:23:23.475 --> 00:23:28.065
question their idea that, actually it makes sense to

428
00:23:28.595 --> 00:23:32.465
think of different performances in hierarchical terms.

429
00:23:32.735 --> 00:23:37.225
It's not as obvious that different performances

430
00:23:37.765 --> 00:23:41.585
are unequal on a single kind of, dimension.

431
00:23:41.885 --> 00:23:44.865
And so you challenge a little bit your notion that,

432
00:23:45.195 --> 00:23:46.965
this is really something hierarchical

433
00:23:46.965 --> 00:23:48.365
that you're looking at here, and

434
00:23:48.365 --> 00:23:51.125
therefore you're prepared to accept less inequality,

435
00:23:51.265 --> 00:23:55.045
or you're less prepared to accept, inequality in,

436
00:23:55.545 --> 00:23:56.845
the reward that people are top

437
00:23:56.845 --> 00:23:58.525
and in the bottom, would receive.

438
00:23:58.795 --> 00:24:03.375
This is a great question. Like the, so it very

439
00:24:04.135 --> 00:24:06.935
specifically, I think there's a notion

440
00:24:06.935 --> 00:24:09.095
of quantification, but what we wanna know,

441
00:24:09.235 --> 00:24:11.615
and this is actually what you see in the experiment I've

442
00:24:11.615 --> 00:24:13.055
been telling you about,

443
00:24:13.635 --> 00:24:17.695
so a more quantified condition results in more inequality,

444
00:24:17.695 --> 00:24:22.415
greater spread if you want, in the, rewards accruing

445
00:24:22.415 --> 00:24:25.695
to people in high versus low, status positions.

446
00:24:26.395 --> 00:24:29.775
But the question is, why does quantification does

447
00:24:30.875 --> 00:24:32.495
its job here?

448
00:24:32.675 --> 00:24:34.335
Why does it have its effect?

449
00:24:34.995 --> 00:24:37.375
And that's a little bit what I was telling you before.

450
00:24:37.815 --> 00:24:41.175
I think quantification needs to be a bit unpacked here

451
00:24:41.355 --> 00:24:45.735
and needs to be, questioned for what is it

452
00:24:45.735 --> 00:24:49.135
that quantification does that makes us,

453
00:24:49.645 --> 00:24:51.055
more accepting of inequality?

454
00:24:51.515 --> 00:24:53.455
So, you know, one argument could be that

455
00:24:53.455 --> 00:24:56.295
with quantification, you just reveal information

456
00:24:56.985 --> 00:25:00.895
about the true difference in value between people

457
00:25:01.245 --> 00:25:06.015
that you couldn't really see in a situation

458
00:25:06.015 --> 00:25:08.335
where performances are evaluative in this

459
00:25:08.335 --> 00:25:09.415
kind of narrative way.

460
00:25:09.955 --> 00:25:14.615
Um, you know, maybe when things are evaluated narratively,

461
00:25:14.635 --> 00:25:16.375
you are like, these people are no different.

462
00:25:16.555 --> 00:25:19.695
Or, I, I don't see the difference,

463
00:25:19.875 --> 00:25:22.695
but with the quantification, now I see the difference.

464
00:25:22.795 --> 00:25:23.975
So then it would make sense

465
00:25:24.325 --> 00:25:27.655
that there would be more inequality in the quantified,

466
00:25:28.615 --> 00:25:30.135
situation because,

467
00:25:30.735 --> 00:25:32.455
I see a difference that I couldn't see before.

468
00:25:32.515 --> 00:25:35.295
So there's all the grounds to re reward people unequally

469
00:25:35.295 --> 00:25:39.295
that I didn't have, in the,

470
00:25:39.405 --> 00:25:41.295
alternate kind of, situation.

471
00:25:41.935 --> 00:25:44.335
I think beauty of this experiment I was telling you about is

472
00:25:44.335 --> 00:25:48.345
that we kind of control

473
00:25:49.325 --> 00:25:54.185
for the, revelation, if you want, of information

474
00:25:54.185 --> 00:25:58.305
that quantification might, introduce by making sure

475
00:25:58.375 --> 00:26:01.185
that in both the non quantified

476
00:26:01.285 --> 00:26:05.755
and quantified condition, the level

477
00:26:05.895 --> 00:26:07.795
of performance and relative performance

478
00:26:07.795 --> 00:26:11.115
that people perceive across these employees

479
00:26:11.695 --> 00:26:13.115
are the same.

480
00:26:14.255 --> 00:26:18.915
Um, and we did this by, very technically, by actually,

481
00:26:19.215 --> 00:26:22.315
asking people in the,

482
00:26:23.135 --> 00:26:27.805
non ified condition to, rate

483
00:26:29.655 --> 00:26:31.595
on a quantitative scale,

484
00:26:32.375 --> 00:26:35.235
the narrative performance reviews that they were seeing.

485
00:26:35.295 --> 00:26:36.355
And then we just used

486
00:26:37.335 --> 00:26:39.985
what people in this condition had told us about this rating

487
00:26:40.365 --> 00:26:44.645
as a quantified rating in the quantified, situation

488
00:26:44.645 --> 00:26:47.685
or condition, this ensures

489
00:26:47.685 --> 00:26:51.405
that essentially there's no difference in the levels

490
00:26:51.465 --> 00:26:53.885
of performance and relative performance that people perceive

491
00:26:53.915 --> 00:26:55.645
between the kind of narrative condition

492
00:26:55.645 --> 00:26:57.885
where performance hierarchies are blurry

493
00:26:58.025 --> 00:26:59.645
and the quantified condition

494
00:26:59.645 --> 00:27:01.285
where performance hierarchies are clear.

495
00:27:01.705 --> 00:27:05.005
So it's not from this revelation of information

496
00:27:05.235 --> 00:27:06.405
that the difference comes.

497
00:27:06.915 --> 00:27:09.325
Instead, I think what this shows is

498
00:27:09.325 --> 00:27:11.125
that when things are quantified,

499
00:27:11.945 --> 00:27:13.965
and that's a little bit going back to what I was saying just

500
00:27:13.965 --> 00:27:16.845
before, when things are quantified, people

501
00:27:17.785 --> 00:27:20.125
are more prepared to think

502
00:27:21.925 --> 00:27:25.125
holistically if you want about performance as something

503
00:27:25.885 --> 00:27:29.805
hierarchical, they're less prepared to challenged challenge,

504
00:27:29.815 --> 00:27:33.525
sorry, the notion that, performance

505
00:27:34.465 --> 00:27:38.425
is something that comes on

506
00:27:39.305 --> 00:27:44.105
a dimension that is kind of, single

507
00:27:44.845 --> 00:27:46.765
and vertical.

508
00:27:47.385 --> 00:27:51.335
Um, while in the narrative condition, people,

509
00:27:52.365 --> 00:27:55.095
when they are exposed to blurry status hierarchies,

510
00:27:55.095 --> 00:27:59.855
if you want, people are more prepared to say, you know,

511
00:27:59.855 --> 00:28:01.575
maybe it doesn't really, maybe, you know,

512
00:28:01.575 --> 00:28:04.655
performance is not such a hierarchical thing after all,

513
00:28:05.115 --> 00:28:07.495
and maybe, you know, performance is very complex,

514
00:28:07.605 --> 00:28:08.935
it's very multidimensional,

515
00:28:09.475 --> 00:28:12.175
and it maybe doesn't really make sense to, you know,

516
00:28:12.175 --> 00:28:14.055
rank all these people on a single scale.

517
00:28:14.355 --> 00:28:18.295
And because of this kind of questioning of the very act of

518
00:28:20.565 --> 00:28:23.695
ranking people on a single dimension of performance,

519
00:28:24.825 --> 00:28:26.645
it makes them less willing to

520
00:28:27.925 --> 00:28:30.405
rewild the different performances unequally.

521
00:28:30.515 --> 00:28:33.405
They become more open if you want to the kind of,

522
00:28:34.445 --> 00:28:38.445
multifaceted, multidimensional complex

523
00:28:39.465 --> 00:28:44.125
aspect of performance in a way that makes them less willing

524
00:28:45.145 --> 00:28:47.285
to just go for, this person's the best,

525
00:28:47.305 --> 00:28:49.325
so they should get that much more.

526
00:28:49.325 --> 00:28:50.965
Or, this person is just the world very clearly.

527
00:28:51.195 --> 00:28:53.565
They could get, they should get that much less.

528
00:28:54.165 --> 00:28:56.085
I think the, the newer research questions

529
00:28:56.145 --> 00:28:58.245
to really emerge from

530
00:29:00.965 --> 00:29:05.135
this approach that we try to promote in this article,

531
00:29:06.695 --> 00:29:11.675
are that we wanna think more about

532
00:29:13.785 --> 00:29:18.435
what drives the aggregate amount of

533
00:29:19.345 --> 00:29:23.795
outcome inequality in social systems out there.

534
00:29:24.495 --> 00:29:29.195
So we wanna think more about inequality in terms

535
00:29:29.295 --> 00:29:33.185
of how much difference is there

536
00:29:33.185 --> 00:29:35.025
between the top and the bottom.

537
00:29:35.205 --> 00:29:36.425
How much difference is there

538
00:29:36.425 --> 00:29:38.105
between the winners and the losers?

539
00:29:38.205 --> 00:29:41.105
How much difference is there between the high status

540
00:29:41.185 --> 00:29:42.365
and the low status people?

541
00:29:43.145 --> 00:29:46.555
Um, and this approach, you know,

542
00:29:46.865 --> 00:29:49.795
compliments the more traditional approach,

543
00:29:49.795 --> 00:29:51.235
particularly in status research,

544
00:29:51.255 --> 00:29:55.075
but also in inequality research more broadly, which focuses

545
00:29:55.825 --> 00:29:59.635
less on the extent of inequality

546
00:29:59.795 --> 00:30:02.675
between top and bottom, if you want,

547
00:30:03.135 --> 00:30:07.355
but focuses more instead on disparities in outcomes

548
00:30:07.425 --> 00:30:10.835
between individuals with different characteristics

549
00:30:10.895 --> 00:30:12.275
or different status positions.

550
00:30:12.775 --> 00:30:17.425
Um, and so what this I think does

551
00:30:17.525 --> 00:30:22.145
for us is that, you know, it, it, it suggests that,

552
00:30:22.885 --> 00:30:26.865
inequality in outcomes between individuals

553
00:30:26.865 --> 00:30:29.185
with different, characteristics

554
00:30:29.285 --> 00:30:31.465
and status characteristics, in particular,

555
00:30:31.815 --> 00:30:34.625
when you see this inequality in outcomes,

556
00:30:35.375 --> 00:30:36.425
it's really a mixture

557
00:30:36.845 --> 00:30:41.555
of two inequality inducing mechanisms.

558
00:30:41.975 --> 00:30:45.355
On one hand, you've got the, the, the, the mechanism

559
00:30:45.365 --> 00:30:49.235
where individuals with certain characteristics,

560
00:30:49.745 --> 00:30:50.955
cash in more benefits,

561
00:30:51.455 --> 00:30:54.035
and individuals with different characteristics,

562
00:30:54.055 --> 00:30:56.835
say gender based or racial

563
00:30:56.975 --> 00:30:59.995
or ethnic based, are gonna be rewarded differently.

564
00:31:00.935 --> 00:31:05.475
So there are gonna be, inequities in the allocation

565
00:31:05.475 --> 00:31:07.635
of bias across people with high

566
00:31:07.695 --> 00:31:11.315
and low, status, for example, or status characteristics.

567
00:31:11.775 --> 00:31:13.755
But on the other hand, there's a different mechanism,

568
00:31:13.755 --> 00:31:17.055
which is that the difference in rew between

569
00:31:18.115 --> 00:31:21.975
any two groups is also driven by the,

570
00:31:22.715 --> 00:31:26.055
our architecture of the status systems

571
00:31:26.285 --> 00:31:29.055
that we perceive these groups through,

572
00:31:29.235 --> 00:31:31.975
or that we perceive these groups as occupying.

573
00:31:32.195 --> 00:31:34.175
And here we say that systems that are,

574
00:31:34.175 --> 00:31:35.455
you know, more vertical.

575
00:31:35.475 --> 00:31:40.215
So when people have mental maps of, performance,

576
00:31:40.755 --> 00:31:45.735
that are more vertical, more clear, more rigid,

577
00:31:46.475 --> 00:31:49.495
then this will have a tendency to just

578
00:31:51.675 --> 00:31:56.285
magnify, the inequality between the top,

579
00:31:57.465 --> 00:32:00.085
and the bottom, between people in top status positions

580
00:32:00.085 --> 00:32:02.525
and people in, bottom status positions.

581
00:32:02.675 --> 00:32:05.325
This focus on the architecture of status hierarchies

582
00:32:05.345 --> 00:32:07.005
as a driver of inequality between top

583
00:32:07.005 --> 00:32:09.125
and bottom, means

584
00:32:09.125 --> 00:32:12.485
that we're not just gonna explain the existence of

585
00:32:13.125 --> 00:32:14.565
inequalities between different groups,

586
00:32:14.945 --> 00:32:18.885
but we could also explain their extent by,

587
00:32:19.005 --> 00:32:23.325
thinking about, how people perceive

588
00:32:24.025 --> 00:32:27.525
the hierarchies of value between these groups

589
00:32:27.785 --> 00:32:30.445
and what are the properties of this image that they form

590
00:32:30.745 --> 00:32:33.245
of the status hierarchies between these groups.

591
00:32:33.685 --> 00:32:37.075
I think here, you know, identifying

592
00:32:38.105 --> 00:32:42.245
this driver of the extent of inequality between,

593
00:32:43.295 --> 00:32:45.515
groups in top status positions

594
00:32:45.515 --> 00:32:49.205
and groups in, bottom status positions,

595
00:32:49.205 --> 00:32:51.485
or it could be individuals in top status positions

596
00:32:51.485 --> 00:32:55.445
and individuals in bottom status positions identifying

597
00:32:56.825 --> 00:33:01.535
this driver, this new driver has a kind of flip side,

598
00:33:02.345 --> 00:33:07.295
which is that, you know, we can, we can start thinking,

599
00:33:07.715 --> 00:33:12.655
how can we act on this architecture

600
00:33:13.275 --> 00:33:15.295
of status hierarchies that people,

601
00:33:16.625 --> 00:33:18.685
perceived.

602
00:33:18.705 --> 00:33:23.695
So the properties of the mental maps that people form

603
00:33:24.505 --> 00:33:28.495
about who's more valuable, who's less valuable compared

604
00:33:28.495 --> 00:33:30.215
to, one another?

605
00:33:30.795 --> 00:33:35.655
Um, could we act on the properties of these mental maps,

606
00:33:35.955 --> 00:33:40.735
to reduce people's willingness to be unequal

607
00:33:40.735 --> 00:33:42.855
between those they see a high status

608
00:33:42.995 --> 00:33:45.015
and those they see I as low status.

609
00:33:45.635 --> 00:33:48.495
Um, so could we, for example, make

610
00:33:50.415 --> 00:33:52.785
sure that status systems

611
00:33:53.685 --> 00:33:55.465
are less vertical?

612
00:33:55.475 --> 00:33:59.065
Maybe, maybe, you know, when we rank universities,

613
00:34:00.325 --> 00:34:03.265
it may be a better choice to just not give a full ranking

614
00:34:03.495 --> 00:34:06.265
with a lot of verticality that's gonna result in a lot

615
00:34:06.265 --> 00:34:08.065
of inequality between the top and the bottom.

616
00:34:08.605 --> 00:34:11.985
But adopt a, you know, rougher

617
00:34:12.855 --> 00:34:16.545
ranking system that groups people into, I don't know,

618
00:34:17.085 --> 00:34:20.745
top 25%, next 25%, and so on

619
00:34:20.745 --> 00:34:25.565
and so forth, in a way that's gonna essentially retain most

620
00:34:25.565 --> 00:34:27.965
of what we like about these rating systems, which is

621
00:34:27.965 --> 00:34:29.525
that they tell us what's better, what's worse,

622
00:34:29.585 --> 00:34:31.925
and we need this to orient ourselves in the world

623
00:34:31.945 --> 00:34:33.125
to make good decisions, right?

624
00:34:34.185 --> 00:34:38.765
But in a way that would not overly verticalize,

625
00:34:39.065 --> 00:34:43.005
if I could use this expression, the hierarchy and

626
00:34:43.005 --> 00:34:46.085
therefore entrench in people the belief that, yeah,

627
00:34:46.255 --> 00:34:49.205
there is such a thing as a great university,

628
00:34:49.265 --> 00:34:51.125
and it's very clear what it is,

629
00:34:51.145 --> 00:34:54.285
and it's, very distinct from a

630
00:34:55.075 --> 00:34:56.725
less great university.

631
00:34:57.505 --> 00:35:02.325
And instead, reintroduce in people's visions

632
00:35:02.585 --> 00:35:07.125
of how things are valuable out there, more of a notion that,

633
00:35:07.145 --> 00:35:08.285
this is complex.

634
00:35:08.575 --> 00:35:11.485
Maybe this is not as vertical as you think.

635
00:35:11.985 --> 00:35:14.925
Um, maybe it doesn't make sense to have a full ranking

636
00:35:15.515 --> 00:35:18.005
because we don't really know how we distinguish

637
00:35:18.005 --> 00:35:20.765
between actually rank number one and rank number two.

638
00:35:20.985 --> 00:35:23.645
And maybe what only makes sense are much broader kind

639
00:35:23.645 --> 00:35:25.525
of distinctions and maybe, you know,

640
00:35:25.545 --> 00:35:28.125
by reintroducing more horizontality.

641
00:35:28.345 --> 00:35:31.165
But you could also say by reintroducing more,

642
00:35:31.735 --> 00:35:34.925
blurriness in some of our performance evaluations,

643
00:35:34.945 --> 00:35:38.405
for example, or by introducing more fluidity,

644
00:35:38.425 --> 00:35:41.325
by reminding people that criteria evolve

645
00:35:41.665 --> 00:35:43.285
and that the people who are at the top

646
00:35:43.285 --> 00:35:46.365
of the hierarchy today might not be at the top tomorrow

647
00:35:46.365 --> 00:35:49.445
because it's evolution of valuation criteria out there.

648
00:35:49.855 --> 00:35:52.645
Maybe if you do this, you might manage to essentially

649
00:35:53.175 --> 00:35:57.005
fight back against the tenancy that these, clarity

650
00:35:57.525 --> 00:36:00.045
verticality rigidity of status hierarchies have

651
00:36:00.105 --> 00:36:04.295
to make people accept the notion

652
00:36:04.755 --> 00:36:07.255
of hierarchy as,

653
00:36:08.625 --> 00:36:10.045
or accept.

654
00:36:10.065 --> 00:36:13.205
If you want, the, the notion that, you know, people's value

655
00:36:14.705 --> 00:36:19.365
or organization's value comes really in degrees

656
00:36:19.425 --> 00:36:23.445
of greater or lesser, value,

657
00:36:24.145 --> 00:36:27.205
and instead reintroduce some complexity,

658
00:36:27.235 --> 00:36:29.725
some multidimensional to how they see the value.

659
00:36:29.785 --> 00:36:33.085
So that's what I call sometimes fighting the kind of

660
00:36:33.685 --> 00:36:36.645
hierarchical gaze that all these

661
00:36:37.945 --> 00:36:40.205
overly clear, overly vertical,

662
00:36:40.265 --> 00:36:44.205
overly rigid status hierarchies that we are exposed to,

663
00:36:44.405 --> 00:36:47.005
a lot of the time, counter that in us,

664
00:36:47.505 --> 00:36:49.765
or this willingness to think about value

665
00:36:49.865 --> 00:36:52.405
as really being this hierarchical thing

666
00:36:52.405 --> 00:36:55.765
where everything can be ranked on a single dimension.

667
00:36:55.835 --> 00:36:57.725
This is what I call the hierarchical gaze.

668
00:36:57.785 --> 00:37:00.285
Its willingness to see this single dimension of value.

669
00:37:00.625 --> 00:37:04.725
We should fight this by, promoting,

670
00:37:04.785 --> 00:37:08.245
status hierarchies that still do their job of,

671
00:37:08.475 --> 00:37:10.445
showing us what's better and what's worse.

672
00:37:11.065 --> 00:37:13.925
But at the same time, do not overly cultivate

673
00:37:14.665 --> 00:37:16.085
our hierarchical gaze.

674
00:37:16.085 --> 00:37:16.485
If you want.

Understanding Social Status and Its Implications

00:00:00 - Think this is a great question and definitely where we should be starting. I think it's important that if we talk about this, we start with a definition of status, which may be a little bit unclear to some of our listeners. so social status or status for short is, traditionally understood as the value individuals are recorded by others. so it's the value people see in you, and this is your, your status, right? And now, two things I wanna

00:00:33 - one is that it's a, an important, thing out there, an important, first, theoretically an important dimension of, social stratification. If you go back to, you know, early 20th century sociologist Max Weber, he theorized actually status as one of the basic dimensions of social stratification alongside power, or like the, the, the, the people's control over the action

00:01:06 - or people's control over, material resources. And so status, the value other people accord you was this third dimension of, social stratification, social hierarchy, if you want. Just also, you know, status is also important to every one of us on a day-to-Day basis. our status, how we are valued by others matters a lot to us. we care about our status from, you know, the classroom.

Understanding Status: Individual Value and Hierarchical Perceptions

00:01:38 - status, in the workplace. You care about your status, being valued by others and status is really a big driver of a lot of things that we do. Acquiring status or maintaining our status is a big, driver of what we do. the other big thing I wanna stress about status is status is attached to individuals. So it it is given by others. It's in the eye of the beholder if you want. but it's attached to individuals, right? it's a characteristic of individuals.

00:02:12 - our core ideas in this article we're talking about was that this individual value, is not all of what we see when we look at others out there and think about their value. And that's because we, we don't really see others in isolation. We tend to compare others and, you know, how they rank relative to one another, another, in terms, of their value, right?

00:02:44 - readings of value that confer status to people, but we see relations of, you know, greater or lesser or equal value among people. And these, mental Maps that we form about the relative value of different people is what we refer to as status, hierarchies. So give, giving you an example. when I think of the

Understanding Status Hierarchies in Higher Education

00:03:19 - and universities in a, in a college ranking or in a league table to speak, like you do in the uk, I have an image of, you know, the value and relative value of different entities, different colleges, different university, and how they relate to one another. Which one is higher, which one is lower, compared to one another? so this is an example, typically of what we call a a state's hierarchy. So the bottom line here is that when we, when we see others,

00:03:50 - we don't just see their individual value, there are status, we also see relations of greater, lesser, or equal value among different individuals. And, and when we think of these relations, we're thinking about status hierarchies specifically. I think there's one, one way of thinking about this is for traditional status research. status I was saying is, is this,

00:04:23 - And starting from this, premise, this research shows that status comes with benefits. And more specifically, that essentially there are advantages that accrue to the people with higher status and disadvantages that plague the people with lower status. And so, traditional status research has shown that,

Status and Inequality in Social Rewards

00:04:57 - you know, university league tables to, the workplace, to, jury work when people are on jury duty, people who have more status. So people who see, see are seen by others as having more value or who have more of what a society values, if you want, tend

00:05:29 - with less of what a society values. So actors with higher status enjoy greater monetary rewards for the same work. they might enjoy, more job offers, more promotions. They might get more opportunities to speak. they might have greater influence in, you know, collective decision making in small groups, that,

00:06:02 - the direction the firm should go into and so on and so forth. In traditional status, research status is used to explain inequality in how much rewards people get for the same work. and an example of this research is called, you know, status characteristic Theory. So status, it's a big name,

Status Characteristic Theory and Inequality

00:06:32 - to understand status characteristic theory argues that, you know, in our societies, higher status tends to be attached to certain demographic categories, defined by new gender or race or ethnicity in particular. And as a consequence, status characteristic theory, argues and actually shows that, individuals who are in these high status categories. So, men, whites tend to receive better material rewards

00:07:05 - even when their contribution are not different in terms of their quality, than do people in, lower status categories. So this is the kind of classic way we think about the relationship between status and inequality. And here, really like the, I I, I wanna stress a little bit this bottom line, which is that here status is used to explain inequities

00:07:36 - that advantage, high status actors, right? How does a focus on status hierarchies add to this kind of traditional understanding of how status kind of shapes inequality and, and contributes to inequality? Looking at status hierarchies means looking at the image, we all have of the relations of greater, lesser, or equal value, among a set of others.

Understanding Mental Maps of Value Hierarchies

00:08:09 - and considering this, this kind of mental map that we have of these kind of relations of greater or lesser or equal value among, among people we argue is, is important because, it enables you to think about the properties of these mental maps, of these relations of superior or equal or inferior value that you see among others. so for example, when I, when I envision a hierarchy of value among my colleagues in terms of, you know,

00:08:41 - to one another, what does this image look like? What are the properties of my mental hierarchy of who is more valuable than, whoever else out there? So is this image very clear to me? Am I very clear on, you know, this person is top, this person's bottom, and, I know exactly a little bit the difference between them in terms of the value and, and, and, and the value they're bringing to a firm, for example.

00:09:11 - Is it, am I a little bit in a, in the midst as to, you know, who is more valuable and who is less? similarly, is, is my image something that is rigid that I just, hold onto it? and I never really depart from this, or am I prepared to think, it my am my shift a little bit, it my move? so then more fluid in a way. And so these properties of the mental maps that we form about the relations of greater lesser value

The Impact of Status Hierarchies on Inequality

00:09:46 - status hierarchies, these kind of architectural properties, of the status hierarchies, these mental maps that I have about, the, the, the relative value of others. Now, why does all of this matter, for inequality? well, as I was telling you, I mean, most traditional status research argues that status positions are associated with the rewards

00:10:15 - So people with more status are gonna receive more than people with less, even if their contribution is not different. but our idea is that by, by focusing on status hierarchies and their properties, their architecture, we could say something more than this. We could say not just who's gonna receive more based on their status position, but also how much more the people at the top are gonna receive compared to the people at the bottom,

00:10:51 - the status hierarchy that they're in. What we argue in the article is that depending on the architecture or the architecture features of the status hierarchy, you're gonna have a greater spread in the re rewards received by those at the top and those at the bottom, or are lesser spread, again, depending on the, on these properties. And in the article, we examine like three such properties,

Dimensions of Status Hierarchies: Clarity, Verticality, and Rigidity

00:11:20 - that people have in mind when they, they compare others for their value. And these are the greater or lesser clarity of status hierarchy. They're greater or lesser verticality, and they're greater or lesser rigidity. And, and our key argument is that the clearer, the more vertical and the more rigid the maps that we have of the relative value of others,

00:11:54 - in the rewards received by those at the top. And at the bottom of, of these, hierarchies, these three dimensions of the architecture status hierarchies. So verticality, you're asking, what we mean when we say that, a status hierarchy. so this mental map that I have for sorting others, by degree of greater or lesser value could be more or less vertical, or more or less horizontal.

00:12:26 - that the verticality corresponds to the kind of depth of the status distinctions I'm willing to see among people in environmental map. So for example, a more vertical hierarchy is gonna display more differentiation, into discrete status positions. So that's the case, for example, in a, in a full fledge ranking, you know, that has many, many,

Vertical vs. Horizontal Status Hierarchies

00:12:53 - As many positions as there are people in the ranking or universities in the ranking, for example, or a a, a very finely grained caste system is a very vertical hierarchy. You know, you got many, many cast, and the distinctions go very deep, and, and, and very specific and very discreet if you want. on the other hand, a more horizontal, hierarchy is gonna feature, you know, rougher distinctions

00:13:24 - of high status versus low status actors. So, for example, to stay in the context of higher education, the distinction between Ivy League and non Ivy League universities is not very vertical. It's, it only has two groups, two, and, and one distinction essentially between IV and non iv, right? So that's what we call, greater or lesser verticality. We can define it first, like, and rigidity is the notion that,

00:14:01 - or flux or churn that I see, or I'm prepared to see in a, a, a, a hierarchy, a hierarchy is gonna be deemed more rigid or more, fluid. So you could think, if, if I am prepared to think that actually, criteria for what constitutes value in a given social setting, are,

Fluidity and Clarity in Status Hierarchies

00:14:32 - that this hierarchy is pretty fluid. Because, you know, people who might be valued highly today based on today's criteria, might tomorrow end up being, devalued compared to what they were yesterday, because the criteria have changed, right? And so there, you, you would have in, in settings where the criteria for valuing people, are influx, evolve a lot, change a lot.

00:15:06 - vision of how people rank relative to one another. and therefore, a less rigid vision of how people fare, relative to one another. Here, I think status hierarchies greater lesser clarity. the best way to see this is say it hinges on the degree of certainty that people have about the, the

00:15:36 - between any two individuals in the hierarchy. So, you know, I may have an image of the relative value of individuals that's very clear, very clear cut, very precise, where I feel I know that someone is, you know, twice as valuable as this other person. And this may be because there's an evaluation device out there, such as a rating system that tells me that, you know, this employee is a three and this employee is a six on a scale of one to 10.

Clarity vs. Ambiguity in Evaluating Value

00:16:08 - this one is twice as good. This is that one because there are six, and the other ones are three. so that's very clear. alternatively, you may have a more, you know, a fuzzier, blurrier, image of how people, compare with one another, where, you know, you might think, this person is better than this other person, but, and maybe it's twice as better, but I'm not too sure.

00:16:42 - 1.5 times. It's a little bit unclear how distant really they are in, in their value. and this can happen, for example, when, you know, instead of having a single evaluation device that's gonna tell me, this person's a three, this person's a six. Imagine you have multiple evaluation devices, and they have different readings of the value of, of,

00:17:13 - I won't be able to really know, you know, which one is the right one, which one is a, a more accurate one. And so it will introduce some kind of blurriness to my reading of how people compare to one another in terms of their, their value, right? if, if I got these kind of discordant evaluation criteria, if you want, this is, this is where we're getting to really the core of, of what we are arguing in there. so we got multiple examples in the, in the article of

Impact of Clarity in Status Hierarchies on Perceptions of Inequality

00:17:46 - of status hierarchies that I've been telling you about, shape, inequality, in the rewards enjoyed by people at the top and at the bottom of the hierarchy. But I think I'm gonna, I'm gonna focus on just one striking example here. One I like because it's also related to work I've done myself. so, and it's about how the greater clarity of status hierarchies makes us more willing to, accept inequality

00:18:17 - by higher versus lower status actors. so the example is, it's actually was, uncovered through an experiment that I did with, colleague of mine. and in this experiment you're gonna see, it makes you, you know, really kind of, see what, what the logic of the argument here is in this, in this experiment, we, we asked a panel of participants to our experiment

00:18:53 - of three, unequally performing employees based on the reading of these employees, performance reviews, right? So people were seeing a, a status hierarchy, so a map of the relative value of three employees, and these employees were, unequally valuable to the firm performing unequally well, and, we were asking them

Manipulating Clarity in Performance Evaluations

00:19:25 - by dividing up the bonus between them. And what we did is we manipulated the, one of the architectural features of the hierarchy that people could see, which was the clarity of the, status hierarchy among employees. That's the clarity of employees, levels of performance and relative performance as they appear to participants, right? And specifically, in, in one condition, performance evaluations were presented as narrative reviews.

00:19:59 - you know, blurriness a little bit, when it came to, deciding on the precise distance in the value between any E two employees, and then in another condition, these narrative reviews were accompanied by a kind of clear cut rating of each employee's performance on just a variable scale, ranging from unacceptable to exceptional.

00:20:30 - as a numerical score. So you see how in the second and third condition, what we were doing, we introducing increasingly greater clarity to the hierarchy, and the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the perceptions that people could form of the relative performance of the three employees. and that, you know, the catch being that we did all of this without altering

Clarity in Performance Assessment Increases Perceived Inequality

00:21:02 - that on average participants, we are seeing, in each employee. So across conditions, people, on average, we are seeing the three employees as performing, equally differently, but our manipulation just increase the degree of clarity with which they perceived, these relations of create or lesser performance

00:21:34 - And in the experiment, that's the beauty of experiments. We find that, you know, the clearer the hierarchy, the more unequally participants were willing to reward the three employees. and specifically I think it's pretty striking, like between the kind of, condition where people were presented with a kind of narrative, evaluation, of the employee's performance and the condition where they saw a numerical score.

00:22:09 - of a difference in, bonuses to the top and the bottom employee in the latter condition, the numerical score compared to the narrative condition, which was blurrier, right? so these are the same employees, same performance, same value. People are called them. The sheer fact that the hierarchy is presented as more precise, more clear makes the level of inequality, that we are prepared

Understanding Acceptance of Status Hierarchies

00:22:42 - and the, the reason why that is, we argue, is that when people are presented with clear, status hierarchies, they are more prepared to accept the idea of a hierarchy of value between individuals. They're more prepared to think about differences in values in these kind of hierarchical terms, as opposed

00:23:13 - with blurrier, hierarchies, then, you know, people are more prepared to question their idea that, actually it makes sense to think of different performances in hierarchical terms. It's not as obvious that different performances are unequal on a single kind of, dimension.

00:23:45 - this is really something hierarchical that you're looking at here, and therefore you're prepared to accept less inequality, or you're less prepared to accept, inequality in, the reward that people are top and in the bottom, would receive. This is a great question. Like the, so it very specifically, I think there's a notion of quantification, but what we wanna know, and this is actually what you see in the experiment I've been telling you about,

Understanding the Impact of Quantification on Perceptions of Inequality

00:24:17 - greater spread if you want, in the, rewards accruing to people in high versus low, status positions. But the question is, why does quantification does its job here? Why does it have its effect? And that's a little bit what I was telling you before. I think quantification needs to be a bit unpacked here and needs to be, questioned for what is it

00:24:49 - more accepting of inequality? So, you know, one argument could be that with quantification, you just reveal information about the true difference in value between people that you couldn't really see in a situation where performances are evaluative in this kind of narrative way. you know, maybe when things are evaluated narratively, you are like, these people are no different.

00:25:19 - but with the quantification, now I see the difference. So then it would make sense that there would be more inequality in the quantified, situation because, I see a difference that I couldn't see before. So there's all the grounds to re reward people unequally that I didn't have, in the, alternate kind of, situation. I think beauty of this experiment I was telling you about is that we kind of control

Impact of Quantification on Performance Perception

00:25:54 - that quantification might, introduce by making sure that in both the non quantified and quantified condition, the level of performance and relative performance that people perceive across these employees are the same. and we did this by, very technically, by actually, asking people in the,

00:26:29 - on a quantitative scale, the narrative performance reviews that they were seeing. And then we just used what people in this condition had told us about this rating as a quantified rating in the quantified, situation or condition, this ensures that essentially there's no difference in the levels of performance and relative performance that people perceive

00:26:55 - where performance hierarchies are blurry and the quantified condition where performance hierarchies are clear. So it's not from this revelation of information that the difference comes. Instead, I think what this shows is that when things are quantified, and that's a little bit going back to what I was saying just before, when things are quantified, people are more prepared to think holistically if you want about performance as something

Reevaluating Performance: Complexity Over Hierarchy

00:27:29 - sorry, the notion that, performance is something that comes on a dimension that is kind of, single and vertical. while in the narrative condition, people, when they are exposed to blurry status hierarchies, if you want, people are more prepared to say, you know,

00:28:01 - performance is not such a hierarchical thing after all, and maybe, you know, performance is very complex, it's very multidimensional, and it maybe doesn't really make sense to, you know, rank all these people on a single scale. And because of this kind of questioning of the very act of ranking people on a single dimension of performance, it makes them less willing to rewild the different performances unequally.

00:28:34 - multifaceted, multidimensional complex aspect of performance in a way that makes them less willing to just go for, this person's the best, so they should get that much more. Or, this person is just the world very clearly. They could get, they should get that much less. I think the, the newer research questions to really emerge from

Exploring the Mechanisms of Outcome Inequality

00:29:06 - are that we wanna think more about what drives the aggregate amount of outcome inequality in social systems out there. So we wanna think more about inequality in terms of how much difference is there

00:29:35 - How much difference is there between the winners and the losers? How much difference is there between the high status and the low status people? and this approach, you know, compliments the more traditional approach, particularly in status research, but also in inequality research more broadly, which focuses less on the extent of inequality between top and bottom, if you want, but focuses more instead on disparities in outcomes

00:30:10 - or different status positions. and so what this I think does for us is that, you know, it, it, it suggests that, inequality in outcomes between individuals with different, characteristics and status characteristics, in particular, when you see this inequality in outcomes, it's really a mixture of two inequality inducing mechanisms.

Examining Inequities in Status Systems

00:30:45 - where individuals with certain characteristics, cash in more benefits, and individuals with different characteristics, say gender based or racial or ethnic based, are gonna be rewarded differently. So there are gonna be, inequities in the allocation of bias across people with high and low, status, for example, or status characteristics. But on the other hand, there's a different mechanism,

00:31:18 - any two groups is also driven by the, our architecture of the status systems that we perceive these groups through, or that we perceive these groups as occupying. And here we say that systems that are, you know, more vertical. So when people have mental maps of, performance, that are more vertical, more clear, more rigid,

00:31:51 - magnify, the inequality between the top, and the bottom, between people in top status positions and people in, bottom status positions. This focus on the architecture of status hierarchies as a driver of inequality between top and bottom, means that we're not just gonna explain the existence of inequalities between different groups, but we could also explain their extent by,

Challenging Status Hierarchies and Inequality

00:32:24 - the hierarchies of value between these groups and what are the properties of this image that they form of the status hierarchies between these groups. I think here, you know, identifying this driver of the extent of inequality between, groups in top status positions and groups in, bottom status positions,

00:32:51 - and individuals in bottom status positions identifying this driver, this new driver has a kind of flip side, which is that, you know, we can, we can start thinking, how can we act on this architecture of status hierarchies that people, perceived. So the properties of the mental maps that people form

00:33:28 - to, one another? could we act on the properties of these mental maps, to reduce people's willingness to be unequal between those they see a high status and those they see I as low status. so could we, for example, make sure that status systems are less vertical?

Rethinking Hierarchical Rankings for Equity

00:34:00 - it may be a better choice to just not give a full ranking with a lot of verticality that's gonna result in a lot of inequality between the top and the bottom. But adopt a, you know, rougher ranking system that groups people into, I don't know, top 25%, next 25%, and so on and so forth, in a way that's gonna essentially retain most

00:34:27 - that they tell us what's better, what's worse, and we need this to orient ourselves in the world to make good decisions, right? But in a way that would not overly verticalize, if I could use this expression, the hierarchy and therefore entrench in people the belief that, yeah, there is such a thing as a great university, and it's very clear what it is, and it's, very distinct from a less great university.

00:35:02 - of how things are valuable out there, more of a notion that, this is complex. Maybe this is not as vertical as you think. maybe it doesn't make sense to have a full ranking because we don't really know how we distinguish between actually rank number one and rank number two. And maybe what only makes sense are much broader kind of distinctions and maybe, you know, by reintroducing more horizontality.

Challenging Rigid Status Hierarchies

00:35:31 - blurriness in some of our performance evaluations, for example, or by introducing more fluidity, by reminding people that criteria evolve and that the people who are at the top of the hierarchy today might not be at the top tomorrow because it's evolution of valuation criteria out there. Maybe if you do this, you might manage to essentially fight back against the tenancy that these, clarity verticality rigidity of status hierarchies have

00:36:04 - of hierarchy as, or accept. If you want, the, the notion that, you know, people's value or organization's value comes really in degrees of greater or lesser, value, and instead reintroduce some complexity, some multidimensional to how they see the value. So that's what I call sometimes fighting the kind of

00:36:37 - overly clear, overly vertical, overly rigid status hierarchies that we are exposed to, a lot of the time, counter that in us, or this willingness to think about value as really being this hierarchical thing where everything can be ranked on a single dimension. This is what I call the hierarchical gaze. Its willingness to see this single dimension of value. We should fight this by, promoting,