![[Adobe Stock]](https://sp-ao.shortpixel.ai/client/to_webp,q_glossy,ret_img,w_750,h_375/https://www.psypost.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/stressed-woman-750x375.jpg)
A new comprehensive analysis of experimental research suggests that feeling lower in social rank due to socioeconomic factors like income or education can heighten the body’s cardiovascular stress responses. While temporarily feeling low-status based on task performance did not consistently produce this effect, the findings point to a potential biological pathway connecting social inequality to heart health. The research was published in the journal Health Psychology.
The study was motivated by a long-observed and persistent pattern in public health: people with lower socioeconomic position experience higher rates of chronic disease and tend to live shorter lives. These health disparities are widespread and appear to involve more than just differences in access to medical care or material resources. Researchers have hypothesized that the psychological experience of being lower on the social ladder might itself be a form of chronic stress that can damage the body over time.
Adrian C. Williams and his colleagues at the University of Alabama sought to test a specific part of this hypothesis by looking for a direct, causal link between the feeling of low social rank and physiological changes relevant to cardiovascular disease.
To address this question, the researchers conducted a meta-analysis. Rather than running new experiments with participants, this approach systematically collects and statistically integrates findings from previously published studies on a given topic. The team searched scientific databases for laboratory experiments that had been published up to September 2023.
They included studies that experimentally manipulated a participant’s sense of social rank, making them feel either higher or lower than someone else, and then measured their physiological responses. These responses included changes in heart rate, blood pressure, and the stress hormone cortisol, all of which are linked to cardiovascular health when repeatedly activated. The final analysis included 25 separate studies, representing a total of 2,005 participants.
When the researchers pooled the data from all 25 studies, they did not find a consistent, overall effect. On average, being randomly assigned to feel lower in social rank did not reliably cause a greater physiological stress reaction compared to being assigned to feel higher in rank. The average effect size was near zero and not statistically significant. This initial result suggests that simply making someone feel temporarily subordinate in a lab setting is not, by itself, a reliable way to trigger a measurable stress response in the body.
However, the team suspected that the way social rank was manipulated in the experiments might be an important factor. To explore this, they conducted a moderator analysis, which involves splitting the studies into categories to see if the results differ between them. They identified two main types of manipulations used by researchers.
One category involved performance-based tasks, where participants were made to feel superior or inferior based on their performance on a cognitive test, a game, or a puzzle. The other category involved manipulations based on socioeconomic factors, where participants were given information suggesting they were of lower or higher standing based on indicators like family income, parental education, or even how they were dressed.
This analysis revealed a clear and significant pattern. In the group of studies that used performance-based manipulations, there was no consistent link between assigned rank and physiological reactivity. But in the seven studies that used socioeconomic-based manipulations, the results were different.
Participants who were made to feel that they had a lower socioeconomic position showed heightened cardiovascular reactivity. This means their bodies, specifically their heart and blood vessels, had a stronger response when they were subsequently exposed to a stressful task. This finding provides experimental evidence for the idea that the psychological awareness of one’s socioeconomic standing can directly influence biological processes tied to disease risk.
Another pattern emerged when the researchers examined the sex of the participants. In the small number of studies that included only female participants, there was a significant association where lower manipulated status led to higher physiological reactivity. In contrast, the studies that included only male participants did not show this effect. This suggests that men and women might respond differently to manipulations of social rank, although the small number of studies in each category means this finding should be interpreted with caution.
The researchers offer an explanation for why socioeconomic-based manipulations had a stronger effect than performance-based ones. They propose that socioeconomic status is a more stable, socially meaningful, and persistent indicator of a person’s position in the social hierarchy. Information about one’s income or educational background may tap into deeply internalized feelings about social value, opportunity, and security.
In contrast, performing poorly on a single, artificial lab task is a fleeting event that may not carry the same psychological weight or be seen as a genuine threat to one’s overall social standing. The biological systems that monitor social threats might be more sensitive to cues related to enduring social structures like socioeconomic position.
The authors identified several limitations in the available research. The total number of studies was relatively small, particularly the number using socioeconomic manipulations. The participants in these studies were predominantly white college students from North America, which limits how broadly the findings can be applied to other age groups, cultures, and racial or ethnic backgrounds.
The experimental designs also varied, with many studies including additional manipulations beyond social rank, which could add complexity to the results. Another key limitation is that these lab studies capture only a brief, acute reaction. They cannot fully represent the chronic and cumulative nature of stress that individuals with lower socioeconomic status may experience throughout their lives from factors like financial strain, discrimination, and environmental hardships.
Future research could build on these findings by conducting more experiments that specifically manipulate social rank using socioeconomic cues. Using larger and more diverse samples will be important for understanding how these effects might differ across various populations. Researchers could also design studies to examine the cognitive and emotional processes, such as rumination or vigilance, that might occur after a person experiences a threat to their social standing. Such work could help clarify the psychological mechanisms that connect the perception of social rank to physiological outcomes.
The study concludes that while not all temporary experiences of low status trigger a physical response, the feeling of having a lower socioeconomic position appears to be a plausible contributor to the biological wear and tear that can lead to disparities in cardiovascular health.
The study, “Perceived Social Rank and Physiology: A Meta-Analysis of Experimental Manipulations,” was authored by Adrian C. Williams, Jenny M. Cundiff, Riley M. O’Neill, Katie E. Garrison, and Jennifer Morozink Boylan.
