Social status is a vague and multifaceted notion, conceptualized differently depending on the discipline and research focus (Turner, 1988; Wegener, 1992; Leary et al., 2014). In sociology, the conventional starting point for a discussion of social status is Weber, who in Class, Status, Party (Weber, 1970, 194) introduced the concept of status to distinguish between the economic and social order in society: “one might thus say that ‘classes’ are stratified according to their relations to the production and acquisition of goods; whereas ‘status groups’ are stratified according to the principles of their consumption of goods as represented by special ‘styles of life’“. However, the boundary between the economic and social spheres is not conclusive, as lifestyles depend on and relate to economic conditions. In Economy and Society (1978), it is also emphasized that lifestyles are based on education, profession, and ancestry. This close connection between economy and ways of life has been thoroughly explored by Bourdieu, which is discussed below. However, first, we report on some theoretical distinctions and previous research to specify our perspective on and operationalization of social status.

In empirical research, “objective status” and “socioeconomic status” (SES) are descriptive terms for an ordinal scale of stratification of individuals based on occupation, income, and education (Oesch and Vinga, 2022). SES is often contrasted with “subjective social status” (SSS), defined as the “social respect or esteem people believe is accorded them within the social order” (Gidron and Hall, 2017, 61), or as how individuals perceive their social positions relative to others on the MacArthur scale (cf. Chiang et al., 2021). Whereas SSS implies self-assessments related to such a collective status order, SES generally measures the economic resources of individuals (including human capital). Neither concept captures social status in terms of lifestyles, based on the collective valuation of individuals, objects, and practices, ranking them at various levels of esteem, honor, privilege, reputation, respect, or prestige.

Some streams of research focus more limitedly on social rankings of occupations (Treiman, 1977; Ganzeboom and Treiman, 1996; Chan and Goldthorpe, 2007; Ulfsdotter Eriksson and Nordlander, 2024), organizations (Podolny, 2005; Sauder et al., 2012), or cultural consumption practices (Chan, 2011; Atkinson, 2018). Within the social-psychological strand of research, Leary et al. (2014) discussed the displaying of symbols to pursue social status. High status is, for instance, signaled by high-end possessions, such as expensive brands in clothes and cars, and ownership of a nice house (cf. Carr and Vignoles, 2011). People may also communicate social status through certain manners and behaviors. In contrast to our study, the focus in some of the more psychologically oriented research is on how people strive to signal or gain status and not how such status cures are evaluated in general (cf. Berger et al., 1998).

Other strands focus on the ranking, closure, and cohesion in standing or esteem of status groups based on gender, age, or skin color (Ridgeway, 2019). While these studies contribute to our understanding of social status, they lack aspects of the multifaceted approach in Weber’s conceptualization that relate to lifestyles and prestige. As stated by Turner (1988, 5):

This distinction, between subjective and objective status, differs from SES or SSS. Whereas SES pulls the concept of objective status toward class stratification, Turner (1988) pulls it toward entitlements, rights, and polity. In our conceptualization, however, social status leans more toward what Turner calls the cultural and “subjective” aspect of status. However, we find it misleading to define this as “subjective,” as it consists of collective valuations of individuals, objects, and practices, objectively giving them various levels of esteem, honor, privileges, reputation, respect, or prestige (Leary et al., 2014; Anderson et al., 2015; Ridgeway, 2019).

In addition, whereas Turner (1988, 5) prefers to view status as an attribute of groups, we focus on individuals. The reason is that in late modern consumer societies, status has become less firmly anchored in cohesive groups or categories, according to theories claiming that lifestyles and status orders are more plural than previously (Bauman, 2007; Milner, 2019). This does not imply “the end of status” (Turner, 1988, 76), or as postmodernists claim, that “everyone can be anyone” (Featherstone, 1991, 83; cf. Campbell, 2004). On the contrary, late modern societies seem to increase individual responsibility for creating and upholding status in the competition for “singularity” – that is, social distinction (Reckwitz, 2021).

Sweden is no longer the epitome of the egalitarian social democratic welfare state it once was. Clear neoliberalization tendencies and increasing economic inequalities have emerged since the 1980s (Larsson et al., 2012; Therborn, 2020). As shown by both Chancel et al. (2022) and Berglund (2024), rising economic inequalities are due to capital income, social transfers, and tax rates, rather than wages (i.e., paid labor). There is also a trend for objective class identity to have a diminishing effect on subjective identity because “a majority of the Swedish population locate themselves in the middle of the social structure” (Karlsson, 2017, 1057). In terms of cultural values, Sweden has long since scored extremely high on postmaterialism, both in terms of self-expression and secular–rational values (Inglehart, 2018).

Against the background of a tradition of “statist individualism” (Berggren and Trägårdh, 2022), and with the added effect of the welfare state as “an experimental apparatus for conditioning ego-related lifestyles” (Beck and Beck-Gernsheim, 2002, 28), the increased of inequalities and postmaterialist values have turned Sweden into a society of individuals. Some claim that it is a hyper-individualistic society, in which consumer trends have an immediate impact “in a very broad middle class apt for everyday status competition” (Ulver, 2019, 56). However, the comparative European literature does not confirm that status-seeking behavior is exceptionally high among the Swedish population (Delhey et al., 2022).

In this context, it is not surprising that status issues are commonly raised in Swedish media (e.g., Söderqvist-Tralau, 2009). Suggestions about sources of social status are numerous: money, consumption, style and looks, education, a prestigious occupation, or just success or self-realization. There is often a postmodernist influence in claims that social status is based on self-creation and consumerism (Ulver, 2012, 44 f.; cf. Bauman, 2007). Then again, studies show marked stability and correspondence with international studies on how occupations are ranked by prestige in Sweden (Svensson and Ulfsdotter Eriksson, 2009). All these findings raise questions regarding the importance of “modern” status qualifiers, such as occupation, compared with late modern consumerist status cues, not least because postmaterialist values imply that traditional status symbols are not very important (cf. Delhey et al., 2022).

As shown in both sociological and psychological studies, possible social status cues based on lifestyles are practically innumerable (Berger et al., 1998; Fişek et al., 2005; Leary et al., 2014; Anderson et al., 2015). In this study, we elaborate on a broad set of status qualifiers mirroring different kinds of resources that may, or may not, be associated with social status. Following the dimensions distinguished in Bourdieu’s seminal analysis (1984; cf. 1986), we initially discuss them in relation to economic, cultural, and social resources.

Economic status qualifiers, such as money and financial assets, are surely related both to class and status. Such assets provide purchasing power to realize a high-status lifestyle. However, money has a cultural value that stands “over and above its expenditure for articles of consumption or its use for the enhancement of power,” that is, money confers social status in itself (Merton, 1968, 190; cf. Carr and Vignoles, 2011). When invested in objects and practices, financial resources are also transformed into cultural status qualifiers (i.e., objective cultural capital), such as durable goods like houses, cars, or boats, which indicate both economic resources and lifestyle (Bourdieu, 2005). Where and how one lives also signals social status because different residential areas have different reputations in addition to various types of housing (Birenbaum, 1984; Bridge, 2001; Leary et al., 2014).

Educational degrees and occupation provide status per se (i.e., institutionalized cultural capital), while also being associated with economic resources. A person’s occupation is considered an important aspect of status because it positions individuals in the economic order (Treiman, 1977; Ganzeboom and Treiman, 1996). There are also cultural qualifiers related to personal appearance (i.e., embodied cultural capital): looks, clothing style, manners, and speech, which have been discussed as status cues (Fişek et al., 2005). Extroverted, sociable, and physically attractive people are ascribed high status (Anderson et al., 2001; Haas and Gregory, 2005; Frevert and Walker, 2014), and speech may be related to both status and stigma, such as having a dialect, a foreign accent, or limited vocabulary compared with being well spoken (Bourdieu, 1991; cf. Goffman, 1969; Birenbaum, 1984).

As shown by Bourdieu (1984), status may be assigned to interest and connoisseurship in relation to sophisticated culture and fine art, such as literature, classical music, and antiques (cf. Atkinson, 2018). There may also be forms of cultural capital and even stigmatizing effects related to ancestry and kin, as indicated by surnames, which in Sweden vary from common patronyms to those of the bourgeoisie or traditional nobility to foreign-sounding names (Goffman, 1969; cf. Clark, 2012). Another family-related status qualifier is that of being married and having children.

Having many friends and a vast social network may also be a sign of social status (i.e., social capital). That is, interactional and relational aspects are important status cues (Leary et al., 2014). People in high social status positions are often considered attractive (Blau, 1960) and “social networks are also important … [for] physical safety, good health, companionship, social esteem, etc.” (de Graaf and Flap, 1988, 453). Today, individuals also signal and accumulate status through digital social networking and self-presentation on social platforms (Reckwitz, 2021).

There have been suggestions of a specific form of cultural capital in Sweden that emerged in the early popular movements and was reinforced in the egalitarian culture of student councils, youth organizations, trade unions, and board memberships. Such “organizational capital” is based both on the display of certain civic values and the ability to navigate in organizations and function as a spokesperson (Broady, 1985, 1998, 13f; Häuberer, 2014). Given the postmaterialist value tendencies in Sweden, one might also suspect status gains from engagement in nature and the environment.

Matters of how an individual acts to signal status were discussed with a more pronounced interactionist perspective by Berger et al. (1998; cf. Fişek et al., 2005). Focusing on status cues, they distinguished, on the one hand, between tasks (what someone does, i.e., acts and behaviors) and categories (what one is or is ascribed to be, i.e., identity matters), and on the other, whether the status cues was indicative or expressive. Berger et al. (1998, 159) thus suggest that “different types of cues operate in combinations with each other.” In our interpretations of the findings, we have been inspired also by this approach.

With this overview of social status concepts and qualifiers/cues, we have laid the ground for the operationalization of social status, while arguing that individual social status is an important research area. That is, even if concepts such as “objective” and “subjective” status, and “social class” and “group status” are relevant for contemporary status stratifications, there are also important cultural aspects of social status not exhausted by such approaches.

As Tables 3, 4 show, there are both similarities and differences in what is considered important for the social status of a woman and a man. The main similarity is the underlying dimensions (Factors 1–3), and their overall importance (grand means). The PCA solutions are almost identical in terms of the qualifiers that load strongly on the dimensions. The three dimensions have some correspondence with Bourdieu’s concepts of economic, cultural, and social capital, but it seems difficult to interpret them in that way. In addition, as this is not a deductive study, but rather an inductively and explorative one, we discuss more unconditionally how these dimensions may be understood and conceptualized.

Factor 1 is the most important one for both genders. There are surely economic aspects to this dimension, but it also includes qualifiers relating to cultural resources, such as occupation and education (cf. institutionalized cultural capital), residential area and housing type, and other social status possessions, such as cars, boats, or summer houses, which are all strong lifestyle indicators (cf. objective cultural capital). It is not that strange that property, occupation, and education load on factor 1, together with economic resources, since they are related to income and can be seen as prerequisites for or expressions of economic resources. Overall, the qualifiers in this dimension correspond to materialized achievements external to the individual, and it consists of indicative and categorical status cues (cf. Berger et al., 1998).

Factor 2 is the second most important one in terms of grand means while being closer in importance to Factor 1 for a woman’s than a man’s social status. The items loading on this factor indicate sociocultural resources, encompassing qualifiers such as manners (behavior and speech), looks and clothing style, having many friends and a large social network, marriage, and children, and – particularly for women’s status – ancestry and family name, indicate (embodied) sociocultural capital. This dimension concerns interactional and relational aspects of self-presentation and behaviors in social relations (Leary et al., 2014), and is seen as expressive in both tasks and categories (Berger et al., 1998).

Factor 3, illustrating more internally founded tastes and interests, is the least important for the status of both genders. The qualifiers loading on this dimension relate to both social and organizational capital. They encompass the extent to which one participates or shows an interest in civic associations and politics, nature and the environment, art, literature, classical music, or antiquities. While the last qualifier may seem to indicate cultural capital, the phrasing of the question as whether the respondent has “an interest in” may explain why it loads in this factor. In addition, these items may be defined as indicative and task-oriented status cues (Berger et al., 1998).

From the grand means, we see that the difference in importance between the three dimensions is greater for a man’s social status than for a woman’s social status. The status qualifier that is most dissimilar in terms of factor loadings between Tables 3 and 4 is ancestry/family name: whereas this qualifier loads mainly on Factor 2 for a woman’s social status, it loads moderately on both Factor 1 and 2 for a man’s social status.

Turning to the individual qualifiers, we find a high correlation between the two rankings of means in Tables 3 and 4 (ρ = 0.827***). Surprisingly, at the bottom of the list are traditional cultural practices such as interest in art, literature, classical music, and antiquities. These are thus not particularly strong social status cues in current Swedish society. All qualifiers included in Factor 3 are in fact placed at the bottom of the ranking of means (i.e., <2), indicating that the suggested Swedish version of organizational capital seems to confer less status than the other qualifiers. Being married and having children are also among the low-rated qualifiers.

At the top of the list, manners and speech are surprisingly highly regarded for the social status of both women and men. Occupation is the second most important qualifier generally – albeit superseded by looks and clothing style for a woman’s social status. The position of occupation is less surprising given that it has been considered “the backbone of social stratification” (Ganzeboom and Treiman, 1996, 202), and the one qualifier most important for the economic positioning of an individual.

It is noteworthy that the grand mean of all individual qualifiers is higher for a woman’s social status (2.29) than a man’s (2.18), and 10 of the 14 items have higher means for a woman. This finding is difficult to interpret, but it may indicate that it requires more for social status to be attributed to women. Women must qualify on more aspects than men to gain or signal status. Furthermore, four items show particularly marked differences, regarding both means and standardized mean comparisons (data not shown; see Section 3). Looks and clothing style, as well as marriage and children, are more important for a woman’s social status, whereas having money and financial assets and owning other kinds of property is more important for a man. There is an impact of gender-traditional views that economic resources, the external items, are more important for a man’s status, whereas outward appearance and having a family, the interactional ones, are more important for a woman’s status.

The next step is to analyze whether there are group-level differences in perceptions. As indicated by the adjusted R2 values and the standardized β coefficients (Table 5), the overall explanatory power of the models is rather low, but there are also significant effects to discuss. Age shows the strongest effects: that is, the younger the respondent, the more emphasis is on Factor 1, the external qualifiers, and Factor 2, the interactional, for the social status of either gender. Nevertheless, there are dissimilar effects on Factor 3 (the internal), as age has no effect on this dimension for a woman’s social status and a positive effect on a man’s social status. Material assets and materialized or personal achievements are thus more important for younger Swedes than for the elders, and cues related to a commitment to associations, the environment, and intellectual culture are more important for the older respondents, especially concerning a man’s social status.

The effects of sex make interpretation difficult because women rated importance on all dimensions higher for both genders, as compared to men. There may be a gender perception bias because this tendency is valid for all 14 items in individual regressions (data not shown). However, as the effects vary across the regressions, some conclusions may be drawn. First, regarding women’s social status, Factor 2, the dimension of interactional qualifiers, and to some extent Factor 3 (the internal), is more strongly emphasized by women than Factor 1, the dimension of external qualifiers. The effect of gender on the dimensions of a man’s social status is not that strong or varied, but we find a slight tendency for women to emphasize the interactional qualifiers for a man’s social status. Second, women emphasize all dimensions of a woman’s status more than a man’s status, compared with the importance men attribute to them. This might indicate that it requires more for a woman to gain social status.

The effects of education are particularly strong on Factor 1 for the status of both women and men. The higher the educational level of the respondent, the more emphasis is placed on the external qualifiers as an important status dimension. There is also a tendency for more educated respondents to put more weight on Factor 2, the interactional aspects.

Country of origin shows some effects. Foreign-born respondents emphasize Factor 3, the internal qualifiers, and to some extent also Factor 1, the externals, more than Swedish-born people for the social status of both sexes, whereas there are weaker and nonsignificant effects on Factor 2, the interactional qualifiers. Regressions on individual items (not shown) indicated that it was “interest in art literature, classical music, antiquities” that was rated as more important by foreign-born respondents, indicating that taste in the fine arts may not be as devalued in terms of status in other cultural contexts as in the Swedish one.

The effect of place of residence shows that respondents from large cities value the externals, Factor 1, more for a man’s social status than respondents from rural areas. There is a slight tendency for the same to apply to a woman’s social status, and the interactional (Factor 2) is more important for the social status of both women and men according to respondents from large cities. However, these effects are weak and have rather low levels of significance.

The subjective class has one significant effect: respondents who grew up in white-collar professional families tend to emphasize the importance of the external qualifiers (Factor 1) more than respondents from working-class backgrounds.

The final background variable, which is based on respondents’ subjective estimation of their own occupation’s prestige shows that individuals in low-status occupations seem to value the interactional qualifiers (Factor 2) for a woman’s social status, and the external qualifiers (Factor 1) for man’s social status more than respondents in high-status occupations, who instead put more emphasis than on the internal ones (Factor 3). These results indicate a slight tendency for gender-traditional views that economic resources are more important for men’s status whereas outward appearances and having a family are more important to strengthen women’s status among people in low-status occupations.