Cited by 18Social Power and Status DynamicsPersonality Traits and PsychologySocial and Intergroup Psychology

Status Consciousness: A Preliminary Construction of a Scale Measuring Individual Differences in Status-Relevant Attitudes, Beliefs, and Desires

Alba, Beatrice, McIlwain, Doris, Wheeler, Ladd, Jones, Michael P.·2014·Journal of Individual Differences

Abstract

This research examined individual differences in how people think about social status via a scale with eight proposed factors. Items designed to measure these factors were administered to an online sample (n = 1,009). A factor analysis revealed eight meaningful factors: rejection of status, high-perceived status, respect for hierarchy, low-perceived status, status display, egalitarianism, belief in hierarchy, and enjoyment of status. The 40 items forming these eight factors were then administered to a new sample of online participants (n = 303) alongside measures of self-esteem, social dominance orientation, competitiveness, assertiveness, social comparison orientation, narcissism, and hypersensitive narcissism. Confirmatory factor analyses from this subsequent study supported the model derived in the first study. A preliminary analysis of the construct validity of this new “Status Consciousness Scale” scale was undertaken by examining the correlations between the factors and other personality variables that were predicted to relate to each factor.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1027/1614-0001/a000143

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Narcissists have been shown to choose hierarchical over egalitarian settings, provided they can gain status in these settings.

    “Second, narcissists have been shown to choose hierarchical over egalitarian settings, provided they can gain status in these settings (Alba, McIlwain, Wheeler, & Jones, 2014; Zitek & Jordan, 2016).”

    From The "Why" and "How" of Narcissism: A Process Model of Narcissistic Status Pursuit (2020) · cites this paper as Alba, McIlwain, Wheeler, & Jones, 2014

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Alba, B., McIlwain, D., Wheeler, L., & Jones, M. P.
Affiliations
Macquarie University (AU)
Venue
Journal of Individual Differences
Published
2014-09-01
Volume
35
Issue
3
Pages
166-176
ISSN
  • 1614-0001 (ISSN-L)
  • 2151-2299
OpenAlex
W2319728730
Cited by
18
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2014: 1
FWCI
1.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Individual Differences (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Power and Status Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
Keywords
status consciousness, social status, individual differences, hierarchy, egalitarianism, status display, self-esteem, social dominance orientation, narcissism, hypersensitive narcissism, competitiveness, assertiveness, social comparison orientation, construct validity

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