Cited by 106Social Power and Status DynamicsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesEvolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior

Subjective Socioeconomic Status Predicts Human Ventral Striatal Responses to Social Status Information

Open access
Ly, Martina, Haynes, M. Ryan, Barter, Joseph W., Weinberger, Daniel R., Zink, Caroline F.·2011·Current Biology

Abstract

The enormous influence of hierarchical rank on social interactions [1] suggests that neural mechanisms exist to process status-related information [2] and ascribe value to it. The ventral striatum is prominently implicated in processing value and salience, independent of hedonic properties [3, 4], and a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study of social status perception in humans demonstrated that viewing higher-ranked compared to lower-ranked individuals evokes a ventral striatal response [5], indicative of a greater assignment of value/salience to higher status. Consistent with this interpretation, nonhuman primates value information associated with higher-ranked conspecifics more than lower-ranked, as illustrated using a choice paradigm in which monkeys preferentially take the opportunity to view high-status monkeys [6]. Interestingly, this status-related value assignment in nonhuman primates is influenced by one's own hierarchical rank: high-status monkeys preferentially attend to conspecifics of high status, whereas low-status monkeys will also attend to other low-status monkeys [7]. Complementary to these findings, using fMRI and a social status judgment task in humans, we suggest a neurobiological mechanism by which one's own relative hierarchical rank influences the value attributed to particular social status information by demonstrating that one's subjective socioeconomic status differentially influences ventral striatal activity during processing of status-related information.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cub.2011.03.050

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ly, M., Haynes, M. R., Barter, J. W., Weinberger, D. R., & Zink, C. F.
Affiliations
National Institutes of Health (US)
Corresponding author
Zink, Caroline F.
Venue
Current Biology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-05
Volume
21
Issue
9
Pages
794-797
ISSN
0960-9822 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2005167911
Cited by
106
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 6
FWCI
30.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Biology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Power and Status Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
Keywords
subjective socioeconomic status, ventral striatum, perceived social status, hierarchical rank, non-human primates
MeSH terms
Adult, Basal Ganglia, District of Columbia, Female, Hierarchy, Social, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Mental Processes, Social Class

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review