Social Comparison, Relative Status and Rank Psychology

Why Relative Position Matters More Than Absolute Position

The finding that humans respond to relative position rather than absolute level is among the most consistently reported and most practically consequential in behavioural economics and evolutionary psychology. It has been reported across a range of settings and methods, although, as the critical examination later in the chapter acknowledges, the intensity and direction of responses vary substantially across individuals and cultures. It is practically consequential because many organisational systems for reward, recognition, and performance management are designed around absolute levels rather than relative position, which suggests that many such systems may be miscalibrated to the psychological architecture of the people they are trying to motivate.

The evolutionary explanation for why relative position matters more than absolute level begins with the logic of status competition in ancestral environments. In a world of genuine resource scarcity, what mattered for survival and reproduction was not how much you had in absolute terms but how much you had relative to others in your group. An individual with ten units of resource in a group where the average is five is in a fundamentally different position from an individual with ten units in a group where the average is fifteen. The first individual has high status, privileged access to mates and coalition partners, and the social influence that comes with demonstrated resource acquisition capacity. The second individual has low status, reduced access to mates and coalition partners, and the social vulnerability that comes with below-average resource acquisition.

Natural selection therefore favoured psychological systems that tracked relative rather than absolute resource levels, because relative position predicted fitness-relevant outcomes more accurately than absolute level in environments where resources were scarce and social hierarchies determined access to them. The result is a rank-tracking psychology that is sensitive to positional changes, emotionally responsive to both gains and losses in relative standing, and capable of maintaining fine-grained assessments of where one stands relative to specific relevant others across multiple domains simultaneously.

Robert Sapolsky's (2005) review of research on social hierarchies in primates described physiological consequences of rank position that extend well beyond subjective experience. Sapolsky reviewed evidence that rank in primate hierarchies shapes stress hormones, cardiovascular function, reproduction, immunity and the brain, although whether high or low rank is more stressed varies with the social organisation of the species and population. In some hierarchies, low-ranking individuals show chronic stress physiology even when their nutrition is adequate, plausibly because the psychological systems responding to rank position were generating stress responses calibrated to the social threat of low status rather than to the physical threat of resource deprivation.

The leadership implication is immediate and uncomfortable. When Linnea's senior research associate said that something changed when she discovered her relative band placement, she was not being irrational or ungrateful. On the reading offered here, she was reporting the output of a psychological system whose evolutionary function is to detect and respond to rank position changes. The emotional response to discovering that colleagues perceived as lower contributors had received equivalent recognition was not a cognitive error or a character flaw. It can be read as the rank psychology doing what it evolved to do: registering a potential status threat and generating the motivational and emotional response that threat assessment warrants.

The Neuroscience of Social Comparison: Rank as Reward and Threat Signal

The neural architecture of social comparison provides the mechanistic grounding for why relative position produces the responses it does. Caroline Zink and colleagues' (2008) neuroimaging research showed that observing a person of higher social rank activates distinct neural responses compared to observing a person of lower rank, including differential activation in the ventral striatum, the anterior cingulate cortex, and regions associated with reward processing and social threat detection. These results are consistent with the brain not treating social rank information as neutral data to be processed alongside other inputs, and with its treating rank information as a signal that engages reward and threat systems. Imaging shows where activity differs and does not by itself establish that rank is a primary signal.

Jean Decety and colleagues' (2004) research used fMRI to compare brain activity when participants cooperated with, and competed against, another person.

In Zink and colleagues' study the ventral striatum responded to the prospect of a rise or fall in rank about as strongly as it did to monetary reward, which is consistent with the brain treating relative position as a reward-relevant signal.

The specific neural substrate that implements social rank tracking appears to involve the serotonin system in ways that connect rank psychology to broader mood and wellbeing regulation. Raleigh and colleagues' (1984) research on vervet monkeys showed that dominant individuals had higher circulating serotonin levels than subordinates, and that experimentally manipulating rank position produced corresponding changes in serotonin profiles. In humans, the relationship between social rank, serotonin function, and mood regulation is reflected in the well-documented association between low social status and depression, an association that the rank theory of depression developed by Paul Gilbert (1992) and Leon Sloman and colleagues (Price et al., 1994) has theorised explicitly in evolutionary terms.

Gilbert's (1992) rank theory proposes that depression evolved as an involuntary subordinate strategy: a suite of physiological and psychological changes that reduce resource competition and signal submission in response to rank loss or sustained low rank, thereby avoiding the escalating costs of status competition that cannot be won. The depressive withdrawal, the loss of motivation and initiative, the reduced self-assertion and increased social deference that characterise depression are, on this account, the output of an evolved system designed to manage the consequences of unfavourable rank position rather than a malfunction of normal psychology.

For leaders, the rank theory of depression has a specific and practically significant implication. The demotivation, withdrawal, and reduced initiative that organisations attribute to poor performance, bad attitude, or personal problems in lower-ranked employees may in many cases be the output of evolved rank psychology responding accurately to a genuine signal of sustained low status. Treating the output as a performance management problem without addressing the underlying rank dynamic is treating the symptom while ignoring the evolutionary mechanism producing it.

The Hedonic Treadmill and the Relativisation of Absolute Reward

Philip Brickman and Donald Campbell's (1971) hedonic treadmill concept identified a specific feature of human wellbeing psychology that is directly relevant to reward system design: humans adapt rapidly to changes in absolute circumstance, returning to a relatively stable baseline level of subjective wellbeing regardless of whether circumstances have improved or deteriorated. Lottery winners and accident victims, studied by Brickman, Coates, and Janoff-Bulman (1978), found that the lottery winners were not noticeably happier than controls and that the accident victims rated their present happiness only somewhat lower, suggesting that the change in circumstances had less lasting impact on subjective wellbeing than intuition would predict.

The evolutionary explanation for hedonic adaptation is connected to the relative position tracking argument. If fitness-relevant outcomes are determined by relative rather than absolute position, the adaptive function of the psychological system is to track and respond to changes in relative position rather than to maintain long-term positive affect in response to absolute gains. Once an absolute gain has been incorporated into the baseline expectation, its fitness-relevant signal has been processed and the psychological system resets to monitoring for the next relative change. The treadmill is not a design flaw in human psychology: it is the expected output of a system calibrated to track relative position in a continuously changing social environment.

For reward system design, the hedonic treadmill has a specific and consistently underappreciated implication. Absolute salary increases, bonus awards, and benefit improvements produce genuine positive responses at the moment of receipt, but their motivational effect diminishes as they are incorporated into the new baseline expectation. The comparative reference point shifts upward with the absolute level, leaving the individual's relative satisfaction approximately unchanged. This is why organisations consistently find that salary increases produce shorter periods of increased satisfaction than expected, and why the anticipation of a reward is often more motivating than the receipt of it.

What does not adapt in the same way is perceived relative position. The emotional response to being recognised as better than a comparison other, or to discovering that one is worse than a comparison other, is less subject to hedonic adaptation than the response to absolute level changes, because relative position tracking serves an ongoing fitness function that absolute level tracking does not. Rank matters continuously in the evolved social environment, and the psychological systems that track it maintain their sensitivity over time rather than adapting away from it.

Festinger's Social Comparison Theory and Its Evolutionary Grounding

Leon Festinger's (1954) social comparison theory proposed that humans have a fundamental drive to evaluate their own opinions and abilities through comparison with others, and that in the absence of objective standards, social comparison with similar others is the primary mechanism through which self-evaluation occurs. Festinger's framework was developed without evolutionary grounding but it maps onto the evolutionary architecture with precision.

The evolutionary grounding of Festinger's drive for social comparison is the rank-tracking function. In ancestral environments, accurate self-assessment of relative capability and resource acquisition capacity was fitness-relevant because it informed the strategic decisions about when to compete, when to defer, when to challenge, and when to cooperate that determined rank outcomes. An individual who systematically overestimated their relative capability would engage in status competition they could not win and incur the costs of unsuccessful challenge. An individual who systematically underestimated their relative capability would defer in competitions they could win and forgo the fitness benefits of achievable status gains. Accurate relative self-assessment, achieved through continuous comparison with relevant others, was therefore under selection pressure for the same reasons that accurate assessment of others' capabilities was.

Festinger's observation that comparison is directed toward similar others rather than toward extremely different others reflects the strategic logic of rank competition: comparison with someone dramatically better or worse than oneself provides limited information about where one actually stands in the competitive landscape that matters for fitness outcomes. The relevant comparison is with those close enough in capability that the outcome of competition between them is genuinely uncertain, because those are the comparisons whose outcomes have real consequences for rank position.

Thomas Mussweiler and Fritz Strack's (2000) research on selective accessibility in social comparison documented the specific cognitive mechanism through which social comparison produces its emotional effects. When comparing oneself to a superior other, the comparison process selectively retrieves information that is consistent with the comparison, specifically evidence of the other's superiority and of one's own relative deficiency, producing the contrast effect of reduced self-evaluation. When comparing to an inferior other, the process selectively retrieves evidence of one's own relative superiority, producing the assimilation effect of enhanced self-evaluation.

The practical leadership implication of this cognitive architecture is that the emotional consequences of social comparison are substantially determined by which comparisons are made salient. Reward systems that make upward comparisons salient, by publishing rank distributions or by creating visible performance bands, will consistently produce the contrast effects that reduce self-evaluation among all but the top-ranked individuals. Recognition systems that make downward comparisons or lateral comparisons more salient will produce different emotional outputs from the same underlying rank distribution. The system design is not neutral with respect to the comparisons it activates.

Rank Sensitivity, Testosterone, and the Challenge Hypothesis

The physiological responsiveness to rank changes is not limited to serotonin and cortisol. Mazur and Booth (1998) reviewed evidence that testosterone rises when a man faces a challenge and then rises in winners and falls in losers; Dabbs and Morris (1990) found testosterone correlated with antisocial behaviour among US military veterans, more weakly at higher socioeconomic status. This bidirectional responsiveness suggests that rank changes may produce hormonal changes that then influence subsequent competitive behaviour, creating a possible feedback loop between social position and biological state that may amplify the consequences of rank changes beyond their immediate social effects.

Alan Mazur and Alan Booth's (1998) challenge hypothesis framework, extending work originally developed in relation to animal dominance behaviour, proposed that testosterone functions as a challenge signal in human status competition: it rises in anticipation of competitive encounters, peaks following victories that increase rank, and falls following defeats that reduce rank. The hormonal dynamics therefore prepare the organism for the competitive behaviour that rank maintenance requires and update its competitive motivation based on recent rank outcomes.

For leadership, the challenge hypothesis has a specific implication for how competitive incentive structures affect physiological state and therefore behaviour over time. Individuals who consistently lose in rank competitions, whether formal performance rankings or informal status competitions, may show falls in testosterone after defeat, which Mazur and Booth's reciprocal model links to later dominance behaviour. The demotivation of consistently low-ranked individuals in competitive organisational environments may therefore be partly a hormonal phenomenon. This is an extension of the challenge hypothesis and not a finding of the cited work, which reviews testosterone responses and correlations in men and does not show that testosterone drives workplace demotivation. On this argument the biology may be responding to rank outcomes and reducing competitive investment in response to repeated defeat, which would be the adaptive strategy for an organism that cannot win the competition it is currently in.

Conversely, consistently winning in rank competitions can produce rising testosterone profiles that may increase competitive motivation, risk-taking, and status-seeking behaviour, which can produce the overconfidence and boundary-violation patterns that the power corruption research in the chapter on power, hierarchy and toxic leadership documents. The physiological consequence of sustained high rank is not merely pleasant: it may be a biological state that changes decision-making, risk assessment, and interpersonal behaviour.

The Inequality Aversion System and Organisational Justice

Ernst Fehr and Klaus Schmidt's (1999) inequality aversion model provided a formal economic framework for the observation that humans are motivated to reduce inequality, both when they are worse off than others and, to a lesser degree, when they are better off than others. The model proposed two parameters: the weight given to the disutility of being worse off than others, which the empirical literature consistently finds to be substantially higher than the weight given to the disutility of being better off, reflecting the asymmetric loss aversion that prospect theory documents.

The evolutionary grounding of inequality aversion connects to the fairness foundation of Haidt's moral foundations framework and to the strong reciprocity psychology documented in the punishment chapter. In cooperative groups where resource sharing norms are maintained by collective enforcement, individuals who receive less than the group norm are experiencing a potential free-riding exploitation by those who have appropriated more than their share. The aversive emotional response to unfavourable inequality is therefore not merely wounded self-interest: it is the moral emotion associated with detecting norm violation in the domain of resource distribution, which activates the punishment motivation that the punishment chapter describes.

The asymmetry in the inequality aversion parameters, the stronger response to unfavourable than to favourable inequality, reflects the loss aversion asymmetry that the forager decision-making chapter established: the fitness cost of having less than others in a resource-scarce environment is greater than the fitness benefit of having more, so the psychological system weights unfavourable inequality more heavily than favourable inequality. This asymmetry may be the mechanism underlying the senior research associate's response in Linnea's case, though that is the chapter's interpretation, since being placed level with people she judged to be lower contributors is not obviously being worse off: if the discovery of equivalent recognition for what she perceived as lower contribution was experienced as unfavourable inequality, it would activate the moral emotion of injustice at a higher intensity than the same absolute reward level would have produced without the comparative reference point.

What Visibility Does: The Specific Effects of Rank Transparency

The core design decision in Linnea's reward system was transparency: making the calculation methodology and the resulting band placements explicit and communicable. The intention was to address the opacity that the previous system had produced. The unintended consequence was to activate social comparison psychology at a level of precision and salience that the opaque system had inadvertently been preventing.

This trade-off between informational fairness and rank salience is one of the most practically important and least discussed design tensions in organisational reward systems. Transparency satisfies the procedural justice requirements that Tyler's (1990) general work on legitimacy and obedience to law treats as central to perceived fairness; the chapter's argument is that people care more about whether the process is fair than whether the outcome is favourable. But transparency simultaneously makes relative position information available to the rank-tracking psychology that responds to it with the disproportionate emotional intensity that the evolutionary framework predicts.

Sonja Lyubomirsky and Lee Ross's (1997) research on hedonic consequences of social comparison showed that unhappy individuals responded more strongly than happy individuals to information about a peer's performance, particularly to a peer who had done better, and the authors left open whether this sensitivity sustains unhappiness or follows from it. The study does not itself establish an organisational implication. One possible extension, which is this chapter's own, is that rank transparency may have more negative effects on the individuals most susceptible to its negative effects, plausibly those already in lower rank positions, than on those in higher positions, creating a possible pattern in which the employees most likely to be demotivated by rank visibility are those whose rank position is already lowest.

Card, Mas, Moretti, and Saez's (2012) field experiment at the University of California found that employees paid below the median for their unit and occupation reported lower pay and job satisfaction after learning that colleagues' salaries were available online, while those above the median showed no gain in satisfaction. The pay information that was intended to promote fairness lowered satisfaction and raised job-search intentions among below-median earners, with a suggestive but imprecise rise in actual exit among the lowest-paid.

For Linnea's system, this research suggests that the engagement and fairness responses she observed are at least consistent with the pattern in the study, although a post-hoc fit to one case does not show that they were predictable: the individuals in lower performance bands were plausibly experiencing the full activation of upward social comparison psychology in a context where the comparison information was now explicit and unavoidable, while individuals in higher bands were plausibly experiencing the benefit of visible confirmation of their superior rank. The net effect on perceived fairness may have been negative because the number of people experiencing unfavourable comparison effects exceeded the number experiencing favourable ones by a margin determined by the band distribution.

Rank Psychology and Organisational Design: What Leaders Can Do

The evolutionary framework for social comparison and rank psychology does not produce a simple prescription for how to design reward and recognition systems. It produces a set of design principles that require genuine trade-offs between competing values.

The first principle is comparison target management. The rank psychology responds to specific comparison targets that are activated by the information environment the organisation creates. Pay bands, performance ratings, bonus percentiles, and recognition ceremonies all activate specific comparison targets and produce specific rank psychology responses. Organisational design that is naive about comparison target activation will consistently produce unintended rank psychology consequences. Design that is deliberate about which comparisons are made salient, which are obscured, and which reference groups are activated for which employees can manage the emotional consequences of rank information more effectively.

The second principle is reference group calibration. The intensity of social comparison responses depends on the perceived similarity and relevance of the comparison other. Comparison with a very different peer group produces weaker rank psychology responses than comparison with a group perceived as highly similar and competitive. Organisational designs that create distinct career tracks, specialist role families, or team-based performance frameworks reduce the relevance of cross-category comparisons and therefore reduce the rank psychology activation that cross-category visibility produces. The strategic use of reference group design is one of the most powerful and least utilised tools in organisational reward management.

The third principle is temporal framing. The rank psychology responds most intensely to comparisons of current position, but can be partially redirected toward comparisons of progress over time. Personal best frameworks, longitudinal development comparisons, and recognition systems that celebrate improvement rather than absolute position activate a different comparison target, the individual's own previous position, that produces rank psychology responses oriented toward achievement motivation rather than competitive threat. The challenge is that temporal comparisons are generally less emotionally salient than social comparisons with peers, so they do not fully substitute for the social comparison motivation but can partially redirect it.

The fourth principle is the absolute-relative balance. The hedonic treadmill research shows that absolute reward levels produce rapidly adapting responses, while relative position changes produce more sustained emotional effects. This suggests that organisational investment in absolute reward generosity will produce shorter and more rapidly diminishing motivational returns than investment in relative position management. This is not an argument for paying people less: adequate absolute compensation is a hygiene factor whose absence is demotivating. It is an argument that above-hygiene-level investment in reward generosity has diminishing motivational returns compared to equivalent investment in making relative position changes and recognition genuinely meaningful.

Critical Examination: The Limits of Rank Psychology as Organisational Framework

The evolutionary framework for social comparison and rank psychology is empirically grounded but several important limitations require honest acknowledgement.

The universality of social comparison motivation is genuine but the intensity and direction of comparison responses vary substantially across individuals and cultural contexts. Individuals high in trait self-esteem show less intense downward consequences from unfavourable comparisons than those with lower self-esteem, and individuals with strong internal standards of evaluation are less dependent on social comparison for self-assessment than those without such standards. The evolutionary framework describes average tendencies: it does not predict uniform responses across all individuals in all contexts.

Cultural variation in rank psychology is substantial and the evolutionary framework must account for it. In collectivist cultures, as the cultural psychology chapter establishes, self-evaluation is more often referenced against group norms than against individual peers, and intragroup status competition is more strongly suppressed by loyalty and harmony norms than in individualist cultures. The social comparison patterns that the Western experimental literature documents may be less intense or differently directed in collectivist cultural contexts, requiring culturally calibrated rather than universally applied design responses.

The rank theory of depression, while theoretically coherent and empirically supported in correlational research, remains a contested account of a complex condition. Depression has multiple causal pathways and the rank psychology hypothesis captures one important dimension without being a complete account. Leaders who use the evolutionary framework to interpret employee distress should do so with appropriate caution and should not substitute evolutionary theorising for professional mental health support when it is needed.

The inequality aversion and social comparison research is predominantly conducted in laboratory economic game paradigms whose ecological validity in complex organisational reward contexts is not fully established. The translation from controlled laboratory findings to the multi-dimensional, long-term, relationally embedded contexts of real organisational reward systems involves inferential steps that the available evidence does not fully justify. The framework provides genuine insight but should be held with appropriate uncertainty about the precision of its organisational predictions.

Key takeaways

• Humans track relative position rather than absolute level because rank in ancestral environments predicted fitness-relevant outcomes more accurately than absolute resource level: neuroimaging is consistent with the brain treating rank information as a reward-relevant and threat-relevant signal, and the chapter argues that responses are therefore disproportionate to absolute changes but proportionate to relative position changes (Sapolsky, 2005; Zink et al., 2008).
• The hedonic treadmill produces rapid adaptation to absolute reward improvements, creating the motivational half-life of salary increases and bonus awards that organisations consistently underestimate: above hygiene-level investment in absolute reward generosity has diminishing motivational returns compared to investment in making relative position changes genuinely meaningful (Brickman and Campbell, 1971).
• Social comparison motivation drives continuous evaluation of relative position through comparison with similar and relevant others, with the cognitive mechanism of selective accessibility producing contrast effects that reduce self-evaluation following upward comparison and assimilation effects that enhance it following downward comparison (Festinger, 1954; Mussweiler and Strack, 2000).
• The challenge hypothesis reviews evidence that testosterone responds to competitive outcomes in men, rising in winners and falling in losers, which suggests feedback loops between rank position and biological state. The chapter extends this, as its own argument, to the possibility that repeated rank defeat reduces competitive motivation and contributes to the demotivation of consistently low-ranked individuals, in which case performance management interventions may not succeed without addressing the underlying rank dynamic; the cited work does not show this in workplaces (Mazur and Booth, 1998).
• Inequality aversion produces asymmetric responses to unfavourable and favourable rank comparisons, with unfavourable comparisons plausibly activating the moral emotion of norm violation rather than merely self-interested disappointment: the senior research associate who felt that something changed when she discovered equivalent recognition for perceived lower contribution may have been reporting the output of an evolved justice system rather than irrational envy (Fehr and Schmidt, 1999).
• Rank transparency produces a trade-off between procedural fairness and rank salience that reward system designers consistently underestimate: transparency that satisfies legitimate fairness requirements simultaneously activates social comparison psychology with a precision that opaque systems inadvertently suppress, plausibly producing negative motivational consequences that Card et al. (2012) found among below-median earners and that the chapter extends, as its own argument, to employees already in lower rank positions more generally (Lyubomirsky and Ross, 1997, left open whether sensitivity sustains unhappiness or follows from it).
• Effective rank psychology management requires deliberate design of comparison target activation, reference group calibration, and temporal framing rather than naive faith in absolute reward generosity: there is no organisational design that eliminates rank psychology, but there is substantial difference between designs that amplify it unnecessarily and those that contain its most destructive dynamics while preserving its legitimate motivational functions.

Reflection questions

• Examine the comparison targets that your organisation's reward and recognition systems make salient. Which individuals and groups are most easily compared to which others? Are those comparisons the ones you would deliberately design, or are they the accidental product of transparency choices made for other reasons?
• Think about a reward or recognition decision you have made or observed that produced an unexpectedly negative response from people who received objectively good outcomes. From the evolutionary framework, which rank psychology mechanism was most likely responsible: hedonic adaptation, unfavourable social comparison, inequality aversion, or the challenge hypothesis's testosterone dynamics?
• Consider the reference groups that are most salient for rank comparison in your team or organisation. Are those reference groups producing competitive dynamics that undermine cooperation, or cooperative dynamics that support collective performance? What specific design choices would shift the reference group salience in a more productive direction?
• Reflect on your own rank psychology as a leader. When did you last experience a strong emotional response to a relative position comparison rather than an absolute outcome? What does the intensity of that response tell you about the rank sensitivity that your own evolved psychology carries, and how does that sensitivity affect your leadership decisions about reward, recognition, and competitive incentives?
• Examine the lowest-ranked individuals in your team or organisation through the lens of the rank theory of depression and the challenge hypothesis. To what extent might their demotivation, reduced initiative, or disengagement be the output of evolved rank psychology responding accurately to sustained low-rank signals rather than a performance management problem requiring corrective intervention?
• Consider the trade-off between transparency and rank salience in your current reward systems. What would you need to give up in terms of procedural fairness to reduce rank salience, and what would you need to accept in terms of rank salience to achieve the procedural fairness that your organisation's values require? Is your current system on the right side of that trade-off?

References

1. Brickman, P., & Campbell, D. T. (1971). Hedonic relativism and planning the good society. In M. H. Apley (Ed.), Adaptation-level theory (pp. 287-302). Academic Press.
2. Brickman, P., Coates, D., & Janoff-Bulman, R. (1978). Lottery winners and accident victims: Is happiness relative? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(8), 917-927.
3. Card, D., Mas, A., Moretti, E., & Saez, E. (2012). Inequality at work: The effect of peer salaries on job satisfaction. American Economic Review, 102(6), 2981-3003.
4. Dabbs, J. M., & Morris, R. (1990). Testosterone, social class, and antisocial behavior in a sample of 4,462 men. Psychological Science, 1(3), 209-211.
5. Decety, J., Jackson, P. L., Sommerville, J. A., Chaminade, T., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2004). The neural bases of cooperation and competition: An fMRI investigation. NeuroImage, 23(2), 744-751.
6. Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(3), 817-868.
7. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117-140.
8. Gilbert, P. (1992). Depression: The evolution of powerlessness. Guilford Press.
9. Lyubomirsky, S., & Ross, L. (1997). Hedonic consequences of social comparison: A contrast of happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(6), 1141-1157.
10. Mazur, A., & Booth, A. (1998). Testosterone and dominance in men. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21(3), 353-363.
11. Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2000). The relative self: Informational and judgmental consequences of comparative self-evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(1), 23-38.
12. Price, J., Sloman, L., Gardner, R., Gilbert, P., & Rohde, P. (1994). The social competition hypothesis of depression. British Journal of Psychiatry, 164(3), 309-315.
13. Raleigh, M. J., McGuire, M. T., Brammer, G. L., & Yuwiler, A. (1984). Social and environmental influences on blood serotonin concentrations in monkeys. Archives of General Psychiatry, 41(4), 405-410.
14. Sapolsky, R. M. (2005). The influence of social hierarchy on primate health. Science, 308(5722), 648-652.
15. Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. Yale University Press.
16. Zink, C. F., Tong, Y., Chen, Q., Bassett, D. S., Stein, J. L., & Meyer-Lindenberg, A. (2008). Know your place: Neural processing of social hierarchy in humans. Neuron, 58(2), 273-283.