Status signaling systems as a super-attractor

A cultural status signaling system is a “social institution” (target article, sect. 5, para. 1), which provides members of a society (or societal group) a means to rank each other in terms of status or prestige (both terms used synonymously here, in the sense of Henrich & Gil-White, Reference Henrich and Gil-White2001). Imagine the entire set of cultural cues, including material displays (clothes, ornaments, beards; Gray et al., Reference Gray, Craig, Paiz-Say, Lavika, Kumar and Rangaswamy2020), behavioral cues (generosity, posture, followership; Anderson & Kilduff, Reference Anderson and Kilduff2009; Egozi & Ram, Reference Egozi and Ram2024), and linguistic or symbolic markers (speech patterns), which together underlie status judgments. We can specifically define a status signaling system as the set of cultural cues that allow independent members of a society to infer the same ranking for a random sample of peers (Yu, Kilduff, & West, Reference Yu, Kilduff and West2023).

Of course, cultural status cues will build upon and complexly interact with non-cultural, that is, innate, mechanisms of status signaling. Yet the interpretation of many cues (e.g., skin tone and assertiveness) is strongly culturally contingent (Kim & Pettit, Reference Kim and Pettit2019). The appeal of understanding status signaling systems as a super-attractor, rather than just an amalgam of cues, is that it explicates what exactly underlies the concept of status (or prestige) in a given society.

A cultural status signaling system is characterized by at least four features: (i) perpetuity – that is, transmission across generations; (ii) a culturally defined set of evaluation criteria – for example, which skin tones or clothes are deemed superior; (iii) an abstract value proposition – signals are understood to imply some sense of worth; and (iv) resource allocation - signals materially manifest in, and justify, privilege.

Status signaling systems are clearly shaped by psychological needs and goals, such as the need for legibility (or clarity, Nguyen, Reference Nguyen2021). Perceivers require legible means to infer status with reasonable effort (John et al., Reference John, Caldwell, McCoy and Braganza2024). Successful status signals are thus often readily visible and, more generally, tailored to the perception and psychology of perceivers.

Established status signaling systems can offer clear “adaptive” benefits. Accurate (or “honest”) signals can improve individual choices and guide social learning (Henrich & Gil-White, Reference Henrich and Gil-White2001). Inaccurate but commonly accepted signals can facilitate peaceful resource allocation and collective action (Yu et al., Reference Yu, Kilduff and West2023). But status signaling systems also risk “runaway” dynamics, becoming self-referential and wasteful (Frank, Reference Frank2011; Schubert & Cordes, Reference Schubert and Cordes2013), perhaps due to fundamental informational dynamics (Braganza, Reference Braganza2022; John et al., Reference John, Caldwell, McCoy and Braganza2024).

Status signaling systems thus seem a strong candidate for Singh’s framework.

Cultural evolution by revealed preferences

Singh’s “large island” scenario offers a useful empirical testbed for subjective selection theory, shielding researchers from too many political distractions. Yet the framework may be most impactful when applied to the more contentious realm of modern culture. For instance, a growing meta-scientific literature is built precisely on the insight that cultural selection based on (subjective) proxies of scientific value is shaping academia in a variety of predictable and consequential ways (Braganza, Reference Braganza2020; Browning & Veit, Reference Browning and Veit2024; Higgins et al., Reference Higgins, Gillett, Kaplan and Ross2024; Peters, Krauss, & Braganza, Reference Peters, Krauss and Braganza2022; Smaldino & McElreath, Reference Smaldino and McElreath2016).

But the most important domain of application is arguably what we might call “cultural evolution by revealed preferences.” How do subjective consumer choices (revealed preferences) lead to the continuous evolution of new goods and services? Evolutionary economics explores both the origins and evolution of preferences (Chai, Reference Chai2017; Cordes, Reference Cordes2019; Veblen, Reference Veblen1899; Witt, Reference Witt2001, Reference Witt2021) and how consumer choices shape goods and services (Alchian, Reference Alchian1950; Braganza, Reference Braganza2025). A better understanding of such processes seems of overwhelming importance to address current societal challenges concerning, for example, sustainability (Braganza & Kapeller, Reference Braganza and Kapeller2025).

One critical advantage of Singh’s framework is that it allows for cognitive biases and idiosyncrasies to affect selection, leading to the prediction that firms should evolve “consumption nudging” (Braganza, Reference Braganza2025; Braganza & Kapeller, Reference Braganza and Kapeller2025). This has profound implications. Does cultural evolution by revealed preferences naturally lead to “a carnival of addictively fitness-faking entertainment products” (Miller, Reference Miller and Brockman2007), super-addictive foods (van Tulleken, Reference van Tulleken2023), or perpetual consumption growth (Braganza, Reference Braganza2025)? These questions raise a range of thorny philosophical issues concerning individual autonomy and societal well-being (Braganza et al., Reference Braganza, John, Caldwell and McCoy2024; Braganza & Kapeller, Reference Braganza and Kapeller2025; Rizzo & Whitman, Reference Rizzo and Whitman2019). But the significant ethical implications arguably speak for, not against, a dispassionate investigation into the role of subjective selection in modern cultural evolution.