New research published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General provides evidence that children as young as five years old develop preferences for social hierarchy that influence how they perceive inequality. This orientation toward social dominance appears to dampen empathy for lower-status groups and reduce the willingness to address unfair situations. The findings suggest that these beliefs can emerge early in development through cognitive biases, independent of direct socialization from parents.

Social dominance orientation is a concept in psychology that describes an individual’s preference for group-based inequality. People with high levels of this trait generally believe that society should be structured hierarchically, with some groups possessing more power and status than others. In adults, high social dominance orientation serves as a strong predictor for a variety of political and social attitudes. It is often associated with opposition to affirmative action, higher levels of nationalism, and increased tolerance for discriminatory practices.

Psychologists have traditionally focused on adolescence as the developmental period when these hierarchy-enhancing beliefs solidify. The prevailing theory posits that as children grow older, they absorb the competitive nature of the world, often through conversations with their parents. This socialization process supposedly leads teenagers to adopt worldviews that justify existing social stratifications.

However, the authors of the new study sought to determine if the roots of these beliefs exist much earlier in life. They investigated whether young children might form dominance orientations through their own cognitive development rather than solely through parental input. Young children are known to recognize status differences and often attribute group disparities to intrinsic traits. The research team hypothesized that these cognitive tendencies might predispose children to accept or even prefer social hierarchy before adolescence.

“The field has typically thought of preferences for hierarchy as something that becomes socialized during adolescence,” said study author Ryan Lei, an associate professor of psychology at Haverford College.

“In recent years, however, researchers have documented how a lot of the psychological ingredients that underlie these preferences for hierarchy are already present in early childhood. So we sought to see if a) those preferences were meaningful (i.e., associated with hierarchy-enhancing outcomes), and b) what combinations of psychological ingredients might be central to the development of these preferences.”

The researchers conducted three separate studies to test their hypotheses. In the first study, the team recruited 61 children between the ages of 5 and 11. The participants were introduced to a flipbook story featuring two fictional groups of characters known as Zarpies and Gorps. The researchers established a clear status difference between the groups. One group was described as always getting to go to the front of the line and receiving the best food. The other group was required to wait and received lower-quality resources.

After establishing this inequality, the researchers presented the children with a scenario in which a member of the low-status group complained about the unfairness. The children then answered questions designed to measure their social dominance orientation. For example, they were asked if some groups are simply not as good as others. The researchers also assessed whether the children believed the complaint was valid and if the inequality should be fixed.

The results showed a clear association between the children’s hierarchy preferences and their reactions to the story. Children who reported higher levels of social dominance orientation were less likely to view the low-status group’s complaint as valid. They were also less likely to say that the inequality should be rectified. This suggests that even at a young age, a general preference for hierarchy can shape how children interpret specific instances of injustice.

The second study aimed to see if assigning children to a high-status group would cause them to develop higher levels of social dominance orientation. The researchers recruited 106 children, ranging in age from 5 to 11. Upon arrival, an experimenter used a manual spinner to randomly assign each child to either a green group or an orange group.

The researchers then introduced inequalities between the two groups. The high-status group controlled resources and received three stickers, while the low-status group had no control and received only one sticker. The children completed measures assessing their empathy toward the outgroup and their preference for their own group. They also completed the same social dominance orientation scale used in the first study.

The study revealed that children assigned to the high-status group expressed less empathy toward the low-status group compared to children assigned to the low-status condition. Despite this difference in empathy, belonging to the high-status group did not lead to higher self-reported social dominance orientation scores. The researchers found that while group status influenced emotional responses to others, it did not immediately alter the children’s broader ideological preferences regarding hierarchy.

The third study was designed to investigate whether beliefs about the stability of status might interact with group assignment to influence social dominance orientation. The researchers recruited 147 children aged 5 to 12. This time, the team used a digital spinner to assign group membership. This method was chosen to make the assignment feel more definitive and less dependent on the experimenter’s physical action.

Children were again placed into a high-status or low-status group within a fictional narrative. The researchers measured the children’s “status essentialism,” which includes beliefs about whether group status is permanent and unchangeable. The study tested whether children who believed status was stable would react differently to their group assignment.

The findings from this third study were unexpected. The researchers initially hypothesized that high-status children would be the most likely to endorse hierarchy. Instead, the data showed that children assigned to the low-status group reported higher social dominance orientation, provided they believed that group status was stable.

“When we tested whether children randomly assigned to high or low status groups were more likely to endorse these preferences for hierarchy, we were surprised that those in low status groups who also believed that their group status was stable were the ones most likely to self-report greater preference for hierarchy,” Lei told PsyPost.

This result suggests a psychological process known as system justification. When children in a disadvantaged position believe their status is unchangeable, they may adopt beliefs that justify the existing hierarchy to make sense of their reality. By endorsing the idea that hierarchy is good or necessary, they can psychologically cope with their lower position.

Across all three studies, the data indicated that social dominance orientation is distinct from simple ingroup bias. Social identity theory suggests that people favor their own group simply because they belong to it. However, the current findings show that preferences for hierarchy operate differently. For instance, in the third study, children in both high and low-status groups preferred their own group. Yet, the increase in social dominance orientation was specific to low-status children who viewed the hierarchy as stable.

The researchers also performed a mini meta-analysis of their data to examine demographic trends. They found that older children tended to report lower levels of social dominance orientation than younger children. This negative correlation suggests that as children age, they may become more attuned to egalitarian norms or learn to suppress overt expressions of dominance.

“The more that children prefer social hierarchy, the less empathy they feel for low status groups, the less they intend to address inequality, and the less they seriously consider low status groups’ concerns,” Lei summarized.

Contrary to patterns often seen in adults, the researchers found no significant difference in social dominance orientation between boys and girls. In adult samples, men typically report higher levels of this trait than women. The absence of this gender gap in childhood suggests that the divergence may occur later in development, perhaps during adolescence when gender roles become more rigid.

As with all research, there are some limitations. The experiments relied on novel, fictional groups rather than real-world social categories. It is possible that children reason differently about real-world hierarchies involving race, gender, or wealth, where they have prior knowledge and experience. The use of fictional groups allowed for experimental control but may not fully capture the complexity of real societal prejudices.

The study, “Antecedents and Consequences of Preferences for Hierarchy in Early Childhood,” was authored by Ryan F. Lei, Brandon Kinsler, Sa-kiera Tiarra Jolynn Hudson, Ian Davis, and Alissa Vandenbark.

New research suggests that participating in pickleball may reduce feelings of loneliness and social isolation among older adults. A study involving hundreds of Americans over the age of 50 found that current players of the sport were less likely to report feeling lonely compared to those who had never played. The findings, published in the Journal of Primary Care & Community Health, indicate that the sport offers unique opportunities for social connection that other forms of physical activity may lack.

Social isolation has become a pervasive issue in the United States. Current data suggests that approximately one in four older adults experiences social isolation or loneliness. This emotional state carries severe physical consequences. Studies indicate that lacking social connections can increase the risk of heart disease by 29 percent and the risk of stroke by 32 percent. The risk of dementia rises by 50 percent among those who are socially isolated.

Public health officials have struggled to find scalable solutions to this problem. Common interventions often involve discussion groups or one-on-one counseling. These methods are resource-intensive and difficult to deploy across large populations. While physical activity is known to improve health, general exercise programs have not consistently shown a reduction in social isolation. Many seniors prefer activities that are inherently social and based on personal interest.

The researchers behind this new study sought to evaluate pickleball as a potential public health intervention. Pickleball is currently the fastest-growing sport in the United States. It attracted 8.9 million players in 2022. The game combines elements of tennis, badminton, and ping-pong. It is played on a smaller court with a flat paddle and a plastic ball.

“Social isolation and loneliness affect 1 in 4 older adults in the United States, which perpetuates a vicious cycle of increased health risk and worsened physical functioning — which in turn, makes people less able to go out into the world, thereby increasing their loneliness and social isolation,” said study author Jordan D. Kurth, an assistant professor at Penn State College of Medicine.

“Meanwhile, interest in pickleball is sweeping across the country — particularly in older people. We thought that the exploding interest in pickleball might be a possible antidote to the social isolation and loneliness problem.”

The authors of the study reasoned that pickleball might be uniquely suited to combat loneliness. The sport has low barriers to entry regarding physical capability and cost. The court is roughly 30 percent the size of a tennis court. This proximity allows players to converse easily while playing. Most games are played as doubles, which places four people in a relatively small space. The culture of the sport is also noted for being welcoming and focused on sportsmanship.

To test the association between pickleball and social health, the research team conducted a cross-sectional survey. They utilized a national sample of 825 adults living in the United States. All participants were at least 50 years old. The average age of the participants was 61 years. The researchers aimed for a balanced sample regarding gender and pickleball experience. Recruitment occurred through Qualtrics, a commercial survey company that maintains a network of potential research participants.

The researchers divided the participants into three distinct groups based on their history with the sport. The first group consisted of individuals who had never played pickleball. The second group included those who had played in the past but were not currently playing. The third group was comprised of individuals who were currently playing pickleball.

The study employed validated scientific measures to assess the mental and physical health of the respondents. Loneliness was measured using the 3-Item Loneliness Scale. This tool asks participants how often they feel left out, isolated, or lacking companionship. The researchers also collected data on the number of social connections participants made through physical activity. They asked how often participants socialized with these connections outside of the exercise setting.

To ensure the results were not skewed by other factors, the analysis adjusted for various covariates. These included age, sex, body mass index, and smoking status. The researchers also accounted for medical history, such as the presence of diabetes, heart disease, or arthritis. This statistical adjustment allowed the team to isolate the specific relationship between pickleball and loneliness.

The results provided evidence of a strong link between current pickleball participation and lower levels of loneliness. In the overall sample, 57 percent of participants reported feeling lonely. However, the odds of being lonely varied by group.

After adjusting for demographic and health variables, the researchers found that individuals who had never played pickleball were roughly 1.5 times more likely to be lonely than current players. The contrast was even sharper for those who had played in the past but stopped. The group of former players had nearly double the odds of being lonely compared to those who currently played. This suggests that maintaining active participation is associated with better social health outcomes.

The researchers also examined the volume of social connections generated by physical activity. Participants who played pickleball, whether currently or in the past, reported more social connections than those who never played. Current players had made an average of 6.7 social connections through physical activity. In contrast, those who had never played pickleball reported an average of only 3.8 connections derived from any form of exercise.

The depth of these relationships also appeared to differ. The survey asked how often participants engaged with their exercise friends in non-exercise settings. Participants who had a history of playing pickleball reported socializing with these friends more frequently than those who had never played. This indicates that the relationships formed on the pickleball court often extend into other areas of life.

“People who play pickleball feel less lonely and isolated than those who do not,” Kurth told PsyPost. “Additionally, it seems like pickleball might be especially conducive to making social connections compared to other types of exercise.”

It is also worth noting the retention rate observed in the study. Among participants who had ever tried pickleball, 65 percent were still currently playing. This high retention rate suggests the sport is sustainable for older adults. The physical demands are manageable. The equipment is inexpensive. These factors likely contribute to the ability of older adults to maintain the habit over time.

Despite the positive findings, the study has limitations to consider. The research was cross-sectional in design. This means it captured a snapshot of data at a single point in time. It cannot prove causation. It is possible that people who are less lonely are simply more likely to take up pickleball. Conversely, people with more existing friends might be more inclined to join a game.

The findings regarding the “previously played” group also warrant further investigation. This group reported the highest odds of loneliness. It is unclear why they stopped playing. They may have stopped due to injury or other life events. The loss of the social activity may have contributed to a subsequent rise in loneliness.

“Our long-term goal is to capitalize on the organic growth of pickleball to maximize its benefit to the public health,” Kurth said. “This includes a future prospective experimental study of pickleball playing to determine its full impact on the health and well-being of older adults in the United States.”

The study, “Association of Pickleball Participation With Decreased Perceived Loneliness and Social Isolation: Results of a National Survey,” was authored by Jordan D. Kurth, Jonathan Casper, Christopher N. Sciamanna, David E. Conroy, Matthew Silvis, Louise Hawkley, Madeline Sciamanna, Natalia Pierwola-Gawin, Brett R. Gordon, Alexa Troiano, and Quinn Kavanaugh.

A new study suggests that changing how parents perceive scheduled intimacy can lead to tangible improvements in their sex lives. The findings indicate that encouraging parents of young children to view planned sex as a positive strategy results in more frequent sexual activity and higher levels of desire. This research was published in The Journal of Sex Research.

Many people in Western cultures hold the belief that sexual intimacy is most satisfying when it occurs spontaneously. This cultural narrative often frames scheduled sex as unromantic or a sign that a relationship has lost its spark. However, this ideal of spontaneity can become a source of frustration for couples navigating the transition to parenthood.

New parents frequently face significant barriers to intimacy, including sleep deprivation, physical recovery from childbirth, and the time-consuming demands of childcare. These factors often lead to a decline in sexual frequency and satisfaction during the early years of child-rearing. When couples wait for the perfect spontaneous moment to arise, they may find that it rarely happens.

The authors of the new study, led by Katarina Kovacevic of York University, sought to challenge the prevailing view that spontaneity is superior to planning. They hypothesized that the negative association with planned sex might stem from beliefs rather than the act of planning itself. They proposed that if parents could be encouraged to see planning as a way to prioritize their relationship, they might engage in it more often and enjoy it more.

To test this hypothesis, the researchers conducted two separate investigations. The first was a pilot study designed to determine if reading a brief educational article could successfully shift people’s attitudes. The team recruited 215 individuals who were in a relationship and had at least one child between the ages of three months and five years.

Participants in this pilot phase were randomly assigned to one of two groups. The experimental group read a summary of research highlighting the benefits of planning sex for maintaining a healthy relationship. The control group read a summary stating that researchers are unsure whether planned or spontaneous sex is more satisfying.

The results of the pilot study showed that the manipulation worked. Participants who read the article promoting planned sex reported stronger beliefs in the value of scheduling intimacy compared to the control group. They also reported higher expectations for their sexual satisfaction in the coming weeks.

Following the success of the pilot, the researchers launched the main study with a larger sample of 514 parents. These participants were recruited online and resided in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. All participants were in romantic relationships and had young children living at home.

The procedure for the main study mirrored the pilot but included a longer follow-up period. At the start of the study, participants completed surveys measuring their baseline sexual desire, distress, and beliefs about spontaneity. They were then randomized to read either the article extolling the virtues of planned sex or the neutral control article.

One week after reading the assigned material, participants received a “booster” email. This message summarized the key points of the article they had read to reinforce the information. Two weeks after the start of the study, participants completed a final survey detailing their sexual behaviors and feelings over the previous fortnight.

The researchers measured several outcomes, including how often couples had sex and how much of that sex was planned. They also assessed sexual satisfaction, relationship satisfaction, and feelings of sexual desire. To gauge potential downsides, they asked participants if they felt distressed about their sex life or obligated to engage in sexual activity.

The researchers that the intervention had a significant impact on behavior. Participants who were encouraged to value planned sex reported engaging in more frequent sexual activity overall. In fact, the experimental group reported having approximately 28 percent more sex than the control group over the two-week period.

“From previous research we know that most people idealize spontaneous sex, but that doesn’t necessarily correlate with actual sexual satisfaction,” explained Kovacevic, a registered psychotherapist. “For this study, we wanted to see if we could shift people’s beliefs about planning sex so they could see the benefits, which they did.”

In addition to increased frequency, the experimental group reported higher levels of sexual desire compared to the control group. This suggests that the act of planning or thinking about sex intentionally did not dampen arousal but rather enhanced it. The researchers posit that planning may allow for anticipation to build, which can fuel desire.

A common concern about scheduling sex is that it might feel like a chore or an obligation. The study provided evidence to the contrary. Among participants who engaged in sex during the study, those in the planning group reported feeling less obligated to do so than those in the control group.

The researchers also identified a protective effect regarding satisfaction. Generally, people tend to report lower satisfaction when they perceive a sexual encounter as planned rather than spontaneous. This pattern held true for the control group. When control participants had planned sex, they reported lower sexual satisfaction and higher sexual distress.

However, the experimental group did not experience this decline. The intervention appeared to buffer them against the typical dissatisfaction associated with non-spontaneous sex. When participants in the experimental group engaged in planned sex, their satisfaction levels remained high.

Furthermore, for the experimental group, engaging in planned sex was associated with greater relationship satisfaction. This link was not present in the control group. This suggests that once people view planning as a valid tool for connection, acting on that belief enhances their overall view of the relationship.

The researchers also analyzed open-ended responses from participants to understand their experiences better. Many participants in the experimental group noted that the information helped them coordinate intimacy amidst their busy lives. They described planning as a way to ensure connection happened despite exhaustion and conflicting schedules.

Some participants mentioned that planning allowed them to mentally prepare for intimacy. This preparation helped them shift from “parent mode” to “partner mode,” making the experience more enjoyable. Others highlighted that discussing sex ahead of time improved their communication and reduced anxiety about when intimacy might occur.

Despite the positive outcomes, the study has some limitations. The research relied on self-reported data collected through online surveys. This method depends on the honesty and accurate memory of the participants.

Additionally, the sample was relatively homogenous. The majority of participants were white, heterosexual, and in monogamous relationships. It is unclear if these findings would apply equally to LGBTQ+ couples, those in non-monogamous relationships, or individuals from different cultural backgrounds where attitudes toward sex and scheduling might differ.

The intervention period was also brief, lasting only two weeks. While the short-term results are promising, the study cannot determine if the shift in beliefs and behaviors would be sustained over months or years. It is possible that the novelty of the intervention wore off after the study concluded.

Future research could explore the long-term effects of such interventions. It would also be beneficial to investigate whether this approach helps couples facing other types of challenges. For instance, couples dealing with sexual dysfunction or chronic health issues might also benefit from reframing their views on planned intimacy.

The study, “Can Shifting Beliefs About Planned Sex Lead to Engaging in More Frequent Sex and Higher Desire and Satisfaction? An Experimental Study of Parents with Young Children,” was authored by Katarina Kovacevic, Olivia Smith, Danielle Fitzpatrick, Natalie O. Rosen, Jonathan Huber, and Amy Muise.

A new scientific review challenges the popular assumption that highly intelligent people possess a naturally heightened capacity for feeling the emotions of others. The analysis suggests that individuals with high intellectual potential often utilize a distinct form of empathy that relies heavily on cognitive processing rather than automatic emotional reactions. Published in the journal Intelligence, the paper proposes that these individuals may intellectualize feelings to maintain composure in intense situations.

The research team set out to clarify the relationship between high intelligence and socio-emotional skills. General society often views people with high intellectual potential as hypersensitive or “hyper-empathic.” This stereotype suggests that a high intelligence quotient, or IQ, comes packaged with an innate ability to deeply feel the pain and joy of those around them.

This belief has historical roots in psychological theories that linked intellectual giftedness with emotional overexcitability. The researchers wanted to determine if this reputation holds up against current neuroscientific and psychological evidence.

The review was conducted by Nathalie Lavenne-Collot, Pascale Planche, and Laurence Vaivre-Douret. They represent institutions including the Université Paris Cité and INSERM in France. The authors sought to move beyond simple generalizations. They aimed to understand how high intelligence interacts with the specific brain mechanisms that govern how humans connect with one another.

To achieve this, the investigators performed a systematic review of existing literature. They searched major scientific databases for studies linking high intellectual potential with various components of empathy. The team did not simply look for a “yes” or “no” regarding whether smart people are empathetic. Instead, they broke empathy down into its constituent parts to see how each functioned in this population. They examined emotional detection, motivation, regulation, and cognitive understanding.

A primary distinction made in the review is the difference between emotional empathy and cognitive empathy. Emotional empathy is the automatic, visceral reaction to another person’s state. It is the phenomenon of flinching when someone else gets hurt or tearing up when seeing a crying face. The review found that individuals with high intellectual potential do not necessarily exhibit higher levels of this automatic emotional contagion. Their immediate physical resonance with the feelings of others appears to be average compared to the general population.

However, the findings regarding cognitive empathy were quite different. Cognitive empathy involves the intellectual ability to understand and identify what another person is thinking or feeling. The researchers found that highly intelligent individuals often excel in this area. They possess advanced capabilities in “Theory of Mind,” which is the psychological term for understanding that others have beliefs and desires different from one’s own. Their strong verbal and reasoning skills allow them to decode social situations with high precision.

The reviewers detailed how these individuals process emotional data. While they may not feel a rush of emotion, they are often superior at emotion recognition. They can identify subtle changes in facial expressions, vocal tones, and body language more faster and accurately than average. This ability likely stems from their general cognitive speed and heightened attention to detail. The brain networks responsible for processing visual and auditory information are highly efficient in this population.

A central finding of the article involves the regulation of emotions. The authors describe a mechanism where cognitive control overrides emotional reactivity. Individuals with high intellectual potential typically possess strong executive functions. This includes inhibitory control, which is the ability to suppress impulsive responses. The review suggests that these individuals often use this strength to dampen their own emotional reactions. When they encounter a charged situation, they may unconsciously inhibit their feelings to analyze the event objectively.

This creates a specific empathic profile characterized by a dominance of cognitive empathy over emotional empathy. The person understands the situation perfectly but remains affectively detached. The authors note that this “intellectualization” of empathy can be an adaptive strategy.

It allows the individual to function effectively in high-stress environments where getting swept up in emotion would be counterproductive. However, this imbalance can also create social friction. It may lead others to perceive them as cold or distant, even when they are fully engaged in understanding the problem.

The study also explored the motivational aspects of empathy. The researchers investigated what drives these individuals to engage in prosocial behavior. They found that for this population, empathy is often linked to a sensitivity to justice. Their motivation to help often stems from an abstract moral reasoning rather than a personal emotional connection. They may be deeply disturbed by a violation of fairness or an ethical breach. This sense of justice can be intense. Yet, it is frequently directed toward systemic issues or principles rather than specific individuals.

The authors discussed the developmental trajectory of these traits. They highlighted the concept of developmental asynchrony. This occurs when a child’s cognitive abilities develop much faster than their emotional coping mechanisms. A highly intelligent child might cognitively understand complex adult emotions but lack the regulatory tools to manage them. This gap can lead to the “intellectualization” strategy observed in adults. The child learns to rely on their strong thinking brain to manage the confusing signals from their developing emotional brain.

The review also addressed the overlap between high intelligence and other neurodivergent profiles. The researchers noted that the profile of high cognitive empathy and low emotional empathy can superficially resemble traits seen in autism spectrum disorder. However, they clarify a key difference.

In autism, challenges often arise from a difficulty in reading social cues or understanding another’s perspective. In contrast, highly intelligent individuals often read the cues perfectly but regulate their emotional response so tightly that they appear unresponsive.

This distinction is essential for clinicians and educators. Misinterpreting this regulatory strategy as a deficit could lead to incorrect interventions. The high-potential individual does not need help understanding the social world. They may instead need support in learning how to access and express their emotions without feeling overwhelmed. The dominance of the cognitive system is a strength, but it should not come at the cost of the ability to connect authentically with others.

The authors also touched upon the role of sensory sensitivity. While the stereotype suggests these individuals are hypersensitive to all stimuli, the evidence is mixed. They do not consistently show higher physiological reactivity to stress. Instead, they may show a “negativity bias.” This is a tendency to focus on negative or threatening information. For a high-functioning brain, a negative emotion or a social threat is a problem to be solved. This intense focus can mimic anxiety but is rooted in an analytical drive to resolve discrepancies in the environment.

The review emphasizes that this profile is not static. Empathy is influenced by context and motivation. A highly intelligent person might appear detached in a boring or repetitive social situation. Yet, the same person might show profound engagement when the interaction is intellectually stimulating or aligned with their values. Their empathic response is flexible and modulated by how much they value the interaction.

The authors provide several caveats to their conclusions. They warn against treating individuals with high intellectual potential as a monolith. Great diversity exists within this group. Some may have co-occurring conditions like ADHD or anxiety that alter their empathic profile. Additionally, the definition of high potential varies across studies, with different IQ thresholds used. This inconsistency makes it difficult to draw universal conclusions.

Future research directions were also identified. The authors argue that scientists need to move beyond simple laboratory questionnaires. Self-report surveys are prone to bias, especially with subjects who are good at analyzing what the test is asking.

Future studies should use ecologically valid methods that mimic real-world social interactions. Observing how these individuals navigate complex, dynamic social environments would provide a clearer picture of their empathic functioning. Physiological measures, such as heart rate variability or brain imaging during social tasks, could also help verify the “inhibition” hypothesis.

The study, “Empathy in subjects with high intellectual potential (HIP): Rethinking stereotypes through a multidimensional and developmental review,” was authored by Nathalie Lavenne-Collot, Pascale Planche, and Laurence Vaivre-Douret.

New research in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin suggests that individuals who flaunt expensive experiences, such as luxury vacations or exclusive concert tickets, reap distinct social benefits compared to those who show off material possessions. While both types of conspicuous consumption effectively signal that a person has high status and wealth, displaying experiences also leads observers to perceive the spender as warmer and more relatable.

Humans have a long history of displaying resources to establish social standing. In the modern era, this behavior is known as conspicuous consumption. Psychologists and economists have dedicated significant effort to understanding how the display of expensive material objects, such as designer handbags or high-end automobiles, communicates status.

The general consensus from past literature indicates that while these items effectively signal wealth, they often come at an interpersonal cost. Individuals who flash material goods are frequently viewed as less warm, less friendly, and more manipulative.

Despite this well-established understanding of material displays, less is known about the social consequences of showing off experiences. The market for experiential spending is growing rapidly, with a global value estimated in the trillions. Social media platforms are saturated with images of travelers enjoying scenic views or foodies dining at exclusive restaurants.

“Discussions about conspicuous consumption in the academic literature have often been restricted to material goods like designer jewelry and expensive cars,” said study author Wilson Merrell, a postdoctoral researcher at Aarhus University and guest researcher at the University of Oslo.

“But with the proliferation of social media it has become easier than ever to conspicuously consume other kinds of purchases like all-inclusive vacation and visits to Michelin-starred restaurants — time-constrained experiences that someone personally lives through. Given a rich literature on the psychological benefits of material vs. experiential consumption more broadly, we wanted to better understand how these different kinds of purchases communicated status and other traits to perceivers.”

The researchers conducted a series of four experiments. The first study involved 421 adult participants recruited online. The research team designed a controlled experiment to isolate the effects of the purchase type from the product itself. They presented all participants with the same product: a high-end Bose home theater sound system.

For half of the participants, the system was described using a material framing. This description highlighted physical properties and the quality of the components. The other half read a description that used an experiential framing. This text emphasized the immersive listening experience and the feelings the product produced. After reading the descriptions, participants evaluated the hypothetical owner of the sound system on various personality traits.

The results offered a clear distinction between status and warmth. Framing the purchase as an experience did not change perceptions of status. Both the material and experiential owners were seen as equally wealthy and upper-class. However, the owner of the experientially framed system was rated as warmer and more communal. This finding suggests that simply shifting the focus of a purchase from ownership to usage can mitigate the negative social judgments usually associated with showing off wealth.

The second study aimed to replicate these results using real-world stimuli and more practical outcomes. The researchers scraped images from Instagram using hashtags related to luxury travel and luxury goods. A new group of 120 participants viewed these posts and evaluated the person who posted them. Instead of just rating traits, the participants judged how suitable the posters would be for specific occupations.

The researchers selected jobs that were stereotypically high-status but low-warmth, such as a corporate lawyer or businessperson. They also selected jobs that were high-warmth, such as a social worker or childcare provider.

The data revealed that people who posted conspicuous experiences were viewed as qualified for both types of roles. They appeared competent enough for the high-status jobs and kind enough for the communal jobs. In contrast, those who posted material goods were seen as suitable for the high-status roles but poor fits for the communal ones. This supports the idea that experiential displays provide a broader social advantage, allowing the consumer to signal status without sacrificing their image as a likable person.

A third experiment investigated the psychological mechanism behind this difference. The authors hypothesized that observers assume experiential buyers are motivated by genuine internal interest rather than a desire to impress others.

To test this, they recruited 475 participants to view social media profiles featuring either material or experiential purchases. The profiles included text explaining why the person made the purchase. The text indicated either an intrinsic motivation, such as personal enjoyment, or an extrinsic motivation, such as wanting to be admired by peers.

When no reason was given, the pattern from previous studies held true. Observers naturally assumed the experiential buyers were more intrinsically motivated. However, when an experiential buyer explicitly admitted to purchasing a trip just to impress others, the warmth advantage disappeared.

In fact, the ratings reversed. An experiential consumer who was motivated by external validation was seen as less warm than a material consumer motivated by genuine passion. This suggests that the social benefit of experiences relies heavily on the assumption that the person is spending money for the sake of the memory, not the applause.

The final study examined the role of social context in these perceptions. Experiences are often shared with others, whereas material goods are frequently used alone. The researchers recruited 334 undergraduate students to read about a target who spent money on conspicuous experiences.

The researchers manipulated two factors: whether the purchase was motivated by enjoyment or prestige, and whether the experience was solitary or social. Participants rated the target’s warmth and indicated if they would want to be friends with them. They also played a game to measure how generous they thought the target would be.

The results provided a nuanced picture of the phenomenon. The communal advantage was only present when the experience was both intrinsically motivated and consumed socially. A person who went on a luxury trip alone was not viewed as warmly as someone who went with friends, even if they claimed to love travel.

This indicates that the presence of others is a necessary component of the positive signal sent by experiential spending. When consumption is solitary, it fails to trigger the associations of warmth and connection that usually accompany experiences.

“There are many avenues through which to signal status,” Merrell told PsyPost. “Expensive material goods communicate high levels of status and low levels of warmth, while expensive experiential purchases can communicate both high status and relatively high warmth—a ‘best of both worlds’ strategy. In our work, this difference is largely driven by whether the purchases were made for intrinsic reasons (passion pursuits close to one’s identity) or extrinsic reasons (just to show off to others), and whether the purchases involve others (social) or not (solitary).”

While the study provides strong evidence for the social benefits of experiential spending, there are limitations to the generalizability of the findings. The samples were drawn entirely from the United States, meaning the results reflect specific Western cultural norms regarding wealth and display. It is possible that in cultures with different values regarding community or modesty, these effects would not appear or might present differently.

Additionally, the ease of displaying experiences depends heavily on technology. The transient nature of a meal or a trip means it requires active documentation to be conspicuous, unlike a watch that is always visible.

The researchers also note that signaling warmth is not always the primary goal for every individual. “One reading of our paper is that luxury experiences are ‘better’ signals than luxury materials goods,” Merrell explained. “However, there are very reasonable situations where someone may want to signal high levels of status and lower levels of warmth.”

“For instance, in the case of a dominant political leader. In this case, a luxury material good may be a more appropriate signal than a luxury experience. So it’s not that one type of consumption is better than the other, but that we should consider how different types of consumption are perceived when we seek status signaling goals.”

In future work, the researchers plan to better understand how these consumption types relate to different forms of social rank, distinguishing between status gained through dominance versus status gained through prestige.

“Prominent theories of status striving advocate for two main paths to achieve social rank: dominance (associated with inflicting costs and punishments to others) and prestige (associated with garnering respect and being well-regarded by others),” Merrell said. “In an on-going project I examine whether conspicuous material vs. experiential consumption is associated with these distinct status pursuits. Early results suggest that experiential conspicuous consumption is more associated with prestige, while material conspicuous consumption is more associated with dominance.”

The study, “Flaunting Porsches or Paris? Comparing the Social Signaling Value of Experiential and Material Conspicuous Consumption,” was authored by Wilson N. Merrell and Joshua M. Ackerman.